THE   MORALITY 
OF  THE  STRIKE 


BBSS 

sP8 


Wm 


1 


I 


M 


«'•■.;: 


Ill 

,"t'!.:''.' 

■hi 

HI 

nans 

Ms® 


$ 


■■'■;■■•■■■' 
.  ./..  .■■>.. 


HI 


THE  LIBRARY 

OF 

THE  UNIVERSITY 

OF  CALIFORNIA 

LOS  ANGELES 


THE  MORALITY  OF 
THE  STRIKE 


THE    MORALITY   OF 
THE  STRIKE 


BY 


Rev.  DONALD  ALEXANDER  McLEAN,  M.A.,|S.T.L. 


INTEODCCTIOX    BY 

Rev.  JOHN   A.   RTAN,  DJ>. 


NEW  YORK 

P.  J.  KENEDY  &  SONS 

1921 


ARTHURUS  J.  SCANLAN,  S.T.D. 

Censor   Librorum 


imprimatur: 

•^PATRITIUS  J.  HAYES,  D.D. 

Archiepiscopus    Neo-Eboracensis 

die  7,  Aprilis,  1921 


Coptrioht,  1921, 
Bt  P.  J.   KENEDY  &  SONS 

PRINTED    IN    U.    8.    A. 


INTRODUCTION 

By  Rev.  John  A.  Ryan,  D.D.,  Professor  of 

Moral  Theology  in  the  Catholic 

University  of  America 

The  subject  discussed  in  this  book  has 
been  of  considerable  importance  for  more 
than  a  century  and  a  half.  During  the  last 
fifty  years  strikes  in  the  United  States  have 
increased  with  great  and  almost  continuous 
rapidity.  The  average  for  the  last  few 
years  is  estimated  at  ten  per  day.  Every 
strike  causes  immediate  hardship  to  the  em- 
ployers and  employees  directly  involved, 
and  in  the  majority  of  cases  to  a  greater  or 
less  number  of  other  persons.  Industrial 
hardship  is  almost  always  detrimental  to 
human  Welfare,  inasmuch  as  men  cannot  live 
right  and  reasonable  lives  unless  they  pos- 
sess at  least  a  fair  degree  of  economic 
security  and  a  fair  amount  of  economic 
goods.  This  is  entirely  apart  from  the 
physical  injuries  to  persons  and  property 
which  the  strike  not   infrequently  entails. 


!  •  1 7 1  o;s 


vi  INTRODUCTION 

Obviously,  therefore,  the  strike  involves 
questions  of  right  and  wrong,  has  important 
moral  aspects.  To  discuss  and  evaluate 
these  aspects  is  the  object  of  the  present  vol- 
ume. 

There  are  three  weighty  reasons  why 
Father  McLean's  book  is  greatly  needed  at 
the  present  time.  The  first  is  the  general 
fact  that  a  large  proportion  of  the  two  con- 
flicting parties,  employers  and  employees, 
either  ignore  entirely  or  inadequately  esti- 
mate the  moral  side  of  strikes.  Sometimes 
one  and  sometimes  the  other  party  regards 
the  struggle  as  merely  an  economic  contest. 
In  the  main  this  attitude  is  a  legacy  of  the 
laissez-faire  doctrine  of  free  and  unlimited 
competition.  All  economic  actions  that 
were  free  from  fraud  or  physical  force  were 
held  to  be  either  outside  the  scope  of  morals 
or  in  conformity  with  good  morals.  More 
often  one  or  the  other  party  exaggerates  the 
Tightness  of  its  own  position  and  the  wrong- 
ness  of  the  position  occupied  by  its  oppo- 
nent. Evidently  strikes  will  neither  de- 
crease to  the  extent  that  is  feasible,  nor, 
when  they  do  occur,  attain  the  maximum  of 
just  results,  until  both  employers  and  em- 


INTRODUCTION  vii 

pli  yees  are  sufficiently  instructed  to  con- 
sider and  weigh  all  the  important  moral 
phase*. 

The  second  fact  that  makes  the  volume  in 
hand  helpful  and  timely  is  the  increasing 
popular  Conviction  that  strikes  should  be 
prohibited  by  law.  This  view  has  already 
been  enacted  into  law  in  Kansas,  and  is 
there  enforced  by  the  Industrial  Court. 
Last  November  the  people  of  Nebraska 
adopted  an  amendment  to  their  constitution 
which  authorizes  the  enactment  of  similar 
legislation  for  that  State.  These  are  grave 
departures  from  previous  practice  in  the 
United  States.  Of  course,  they  raise  im- 
portant questions  of  constitutional  rights,  as 
will  as  of  industrial  expediency.  But  they 
also  involve  the  problem  of  moral  rights. 
This  problem  can  be  solved  only  by  a  study 
of  all  the  moral  aspects  of  the  situation. 

In  the  third  place.  Father  McLean's  hook 
is  valuable  because  it  discusses  the  subject 
more  thoroughly  and  more  fundamentally 
than  does  any  existing  work  in  the  English 
language.  We  have  many  magazine  arti- 
cles and  pamphlets  which  cover  the  field  in 
outline;  but  none  of  these  productions  comes 


viii  INTRODUCTION 

as  near  to  presenting  all  the  phases  of  the 
subject  or  to  treating  them  all  adequately 
as  does  the  present  volume.  Moreover,  the 
book  evinces  a  greater  knowledge  and  gives 
a  better  presentation  of  the  pertinent  eco- 
nomic conditions  and  relations  than  is  to  be 
found  in  any  other  English  publication  on 
the  moral  side  of  industrial  disputes.  This 
is  not  the  least  of  the  merits  of  the  volume ; 
for  we  cannot  arrive  at  correct  moral  judg- 
ments on  any  phase  of  the  strike  problem 
until  we  know  all  the  underlying  economic 
facts.  For  example,  many  persons  regard 
the  sympathetic  strike  as  in  all  circum- 
stances wrong,  and  compulsory  arbitration 
as  always  desirable ;  a  larger  knowledge  and 
view  of  the  facts  of  industry  and  politics 
would  compel  a  revision  of  this  judgment. 

In  a  matter  of  such  great  complexity,  and 
concerning  which  we  have  no  official  Church 
pronouncements  as  regards  details,  it  is 
easily  possible  for  any  individual  to  be  mis- 
taken in  one  or  other  of  his  ethical  conclu- 
sions. Nevertheless,  there  is  good  reason  to 
believe  that  the  moral  judgments  set  down 
in  Father  McLean's  book  will  safely  endure 
the  test  of  any  competent  analysis. 


CONTENTS 


Introduction 

I.      History  of  the  Origin  and  DEVELOP- 
MENT   OF    THE    STRIKE    PROBLEM     . 

II.     The    Morality    of    the    Strike    In- 
trinsically Considered    . 

1.  In  relation  to  the  employer     . 

2.  In  relation  to  the  workers 

3.  In  relation  to  society  . 

III.  The  Morality  of  the  Strike  in  Its 
Relation  to  the  End  or  Object 
Socoht   

1.  Just   and   unjust  causes 

a.  Working  conditions  . 

b.  I  lours  of  labor     . 

c.  Union  recognition 

2.  Proportionate  cause 

3.  Successful      issue  —  well-founded 
hope  of 

IV.     The   MORALITY  01  the  Strike  in  Its 

B   i  \tion    to    tin:    \l i  ws    Em- 
ployed to  In  rOBCI  mi:  DxiCANDS 

1.  Leaf  drastic  means  unsuccessful    . 

2.  Peaceful    picketing        .       .       .       . 

3.  Physical   violence 


r.v;E 
V 


19 
19 
26 
39 


45 

45 

(56 

67 

72 

77 

87 


91 

91 

97 

103 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 


V.     The  Morality  of: 

1.  The  Sympathetic  Strike    .      .      .  HI 

a.  Against  the  same  employer       .  Ill 

b.  Against  different  employers     .  115 

2.  The  General  Strike     ....  123 

a.  The  general  sympathetic  strike  123 

b.  Syndicalism 125 

c.  The  political  strike.     Direct  ac- 
tion               129 

VI.     The   Morality   of   State   Action   in 

Relation  to  Strike  Prevention  136 

1.  General  legal  prohibition         .      .  140 

a.  Direct  legislation       ....  148 

b.  Compulsory  arbitration        .      .  152 

2.  Indirect  methods 160 


VII.     Bibliography 
Index 


176 
191 


THE  MORALITY  OF 
THE  STRIKE 


THE   MORALITY   OF 
THE  STRIKE 


HISTORY  OF  THE  ORIGIN  AND 
DEVELOPMENT  OF  THE 

STRIKE  PROBLEM 

THE  strike  may  truly  be  said  to  be  a 
problem  peculiar  to  modern  indus- 
trial life.  Vet  the  struggle  mani- 
fested in  industrial  life  can  itself  hardly  be 
called  a  modern  one,  as  it  already  bears  the 
marks  of  the  wear  and  tear  of  ages.  Its 
origin  must  be  traced  back  far  beyond  the 
beginning  of  the  present  industrial  system 
to  remote  antiquity — to  the  unhappy  and 
degraded  state  of  the  first  laboring  class  of 
history      the    slaves.      "Ancient    civilization 

comes  before  us  with  an  economic  regime 

founded  upon  the  slavery  of  the  industrial 
professions."1      How    and    at    what    period 

»Dunoycr,  De  la  Libcrte  du  Traviil,  IJl>.   IV,  CIV,  1. 

1 


ft       THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

this  regime  became  established  we  have  no 
knowledge.  "In  the  oldest  times,  until 
when  it  is  not  evident,  slavery  did  not  pre- 
vail to  any  considerable  extent  but  more  use 
was  made  of  free  labor."  1  According  to 
St.  Thomas,  "In  the  beginning  freedom  and 
equity  prevailed"  among  the  peoples,  "the 
distinction  of  slavery  being  introduced  not 
by  nature  but  by  reason."  2  In  the  Old 
Testament  we  find  that,  at  the  time  of 
Abraham,  slavery  was  already  an  estab- 
lished institution 3  as  had  been  predicted 
long  before  by  Noe.4  It  would  seem  that 
the  industrial  systems  of  almost,  if  not  all 
nations,  previous  to  the  advent  of  Christian- 
ity, depended  upon  slavery.  "It  existed 
anciently  among  Babylonians,  Assyrians, 
Egyptians,  Hebrews,  Persians,  Phoeni- 
cians, Greeks,  Romans,  and  in  India,  China 
and  Africa."  5 

Slavery  is  the  first  condition  in  which 
labor  appears  as  a  class  in  history.  Cicero 
and  Livy  record  the  disappearance  of  a  free 

1  Mommsen,  quoted  by  Niebor,  Slavery  as  an  Industrial 
System,  p.  174. 

8  Surama  1,  2  q.  94,  a.  5,  ad.  3. 

aCf.  Genesis  XXI,  10. 

4  Ibid.,  IX,  25-27. 

6  New  International  Encyclopedia,  2nd  edition,  Vol.  21, 
Art.  Slavery,  New  York,  1917. 


THi:  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE       3 

plcbs  from  the  country  districts  of  Italy  and 
its  replacement  by  gangs  of  slaves  working 
on  large  estates.1  Cato  tells  us  the  latter 
was  preferable.2  During  the  age  of  the  An- 
tonines,  as  we  are  informed  by  Gibbon, 
there  were  as  many  slaves  as  freemen  in  the 
Roman  Empire,1  while  Father  Husslcin 
states  that  "the  slave  population  of  Rome 
in  the  early  days  of  the  Empire  is  estimated 
at  1,000,000  as  against  only  10,000  of 
the  upper  classes  .  .  .  there  was  no  middle 
class."  4 

According  to  the  historian  Ingram  "in 
the  year  309  B.  C.  the  Athenian  slaves  num- 
bered from  188,000  to  200,000,  while  the 
freemen  numbered  67,000.  Of  Spartans 
there  were  8,200,  of  Helots  220,000."  5 

Previous  to  the  advent  of  Christianity  the 
condition  of  the  slaves  was,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  those  of  the  Hebrews,  marked 
by    great     injustices    and    extreme    cruelty. 

Among  the  Hebrews,  slaves  were  protected 

from  cruelty  and  from  permanent  bondage 
by    the    Old    Testament    laws.'''     As  St. 

«('f.  Oc  11  (".  Pull  SO,  Sl|  l-iw  V,  XII. 

•Cf.  v.  i. 

•Cf.  C'.ui/.ot,  Vol.   I,  ]». 

*  Democratic    Industry,   p 

*  History  of  Slavery,  pp.   '  '■.   '•. 

•Cf.  Dent  V,   Hi;  XVI.  ll;  Kx.ul.  XXI.  2. 


4>       THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

Thomas  remarks  they  were  slaves  secimdum 
quid  not  simpliciter  "quasi  mercenarius 
usque  ad  tempus."  * 

The  Egyptian  Pharaohs  made  the  ex- 
portation of  slaves  a  regular  and  profitable 
trade.  "An  extensive  slave  trade  with  the 
Mediterranean  islands,  Asia  Minor,  Africa, 
or  Southern  Europe  aided  to  fill  Athens, 
Corinth,  iEgina,  and  Italy  with  vast  num- 
bers of  slaves  numbering  often  thrice  the 
free  men."  2  These  "slaves  were"  accord- 
ing to  Aristotle  "the  living  working  tools 
and  possessions"  3  and  they  were  generally 
treated  as  such.  The  master  had  complete 
power  over  the  life  and  death  of  his  slaves; 
a  policy  often  practiced  as  more  profitable 
than  to  provide  properly  and  to  care  for  the 
slave,  was  to  wear  him  out  in  a  few  years.4 

No  wonder  then  that  there  should  be  some 
outbursts  of  revolt  against  such  treatment, 
although  generally  the  continual  threat  of 
death  held  over  slaves  by  their  masters 
tended  to  suppress  any  such  uprisings.  As 
early  as  the  year  413  B.  C.  we  read  of  a 

ll;  2  qu.  105,  a.  4,  ad.  1,  4. 
2  New  International  Encyclopedia,  op.  cit. 
3Polit.   Bk.  7,  C.   9. 

4Cf.   Husslein,  Democratic  Industry,  p.  32.     New  York, 
1919. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE      5 

"revolt  of  the  slaves  in  the  silver  mines  at 
Laivium."  '    The  insurrection  at  Latinum 

and  that  headed  by  Spartacus  are  instances 
of  other  struggles  of  a  similar  nature. 

Although  these  revolutions  can  hardly  be 
called  strikes  in  the  modern  sense  of  the 
term,  (hey  are  still  the  historical  antecedents 
of  the  present  labor  struggles,  their  purpose 
being  akin  to  that  which  is  at  the  basis  of 
present  day  industrial  conflicts.  They  con- 
stituted a  revolt  of  the  workers  against  the 
Oppression  and  grave  injustices  of  those  for 
whom  they  labored,  and  represented  the  ex- 
pression of  the  general  desire  for  personal 
liberty  and  relief  from  the  industrial  system 
of  the  time  which  ground  them  in  both  soul 
and  body. 

Some  historians  ■  have  endeavored  to  show 
that  these  uprisings  were  caused  and  di- 
rected by  labor  organizations  and  unions 
which,  they  claim,  existed  even  at  this  early 
period.  This  opinion  can  hardly  be  main- 
tained in  view  of  the  conclusions  of  those 

who  have  made  exhaustive  studies  of  the 
subject.     The  Greek  "Kranoi"  were  largely 

'Time,  iv  lull,.  Pdopea    VII,  -1:. 

•if.   Osborne   Ward,  The   Ancient    Lowly,   Vol.   l,  Cc. 

:*.  l.'. 


6      THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

clubs  or  societies  for  convivial  and  religious 
purposes.  To  ascribe  to  them  a  character  of 
mutual  relief  and  benefit  associations  such 
as  characterizes  our  modern  labor  unions  is 
shown  by  Van  Hoist  to  be  incorrect.1 
Waltzing,  in  his  work  "Etude  historique  sur 
les  corporations  professionelles  chez  les  Ro- 
mains,"  has  shown  conclusively  that  "the  in- 
dustrial associations  among  the  Romans  un- 
doubtedly were  not  labor  unions,  nor  com- 
mercial, nor  co-operative  unions."  2  These 
guilds  "made  no  attempt  to  raise  wages,  to 
impose  working  conditions,  to  limit  the 
number  of  apprentices,  to  develop  skill  and 
artistic  taste  in  the  craft,  or  to  better  the 
social  or  political  position  of  the  laborer.  It 
was  the  need  which  their  numbers  felt  for 
companionship,  sympathy  and  help  in  the 
emergencies  of  life  and  the  desire  to  give 
more  meaning  to  their  lives  that  drew  them 
together."  3 

Christianity  exercised  very  great  influ- 
ence in  relieving  the  masses  of  the  people 
from  the  galling  yoke  of  slavery  under 
which  they  labored  at  the  beginning  of  our 

xCf.  Smith,  Dictionary  of  Greek  and  Roman  Antiquity, 
Art.  Eranoi. 

2  Vol.  II,  p.  478. 

•Waltzing,  Op.  cit.,  pp.  221-222. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE      7 

era.  Wherever  the  Church  went  she 
preached  the  dignity  of  man,  the  common 
brotherhood  of  all  under  the  Fatherhood  of 

God,  etc.  Such  teaching  was  hound  to  have 
a  great  effect  on  the  treatment  of  the  labor- 
ing class  by  their  masters  especially  those 
who  became  Christians.  Even  the  socialist 
writer,  Thomas  Kirkup,  hears  testimony  to 
the  influence  of  the  Church  in  bettering  the 
condition  of  the  laboring  element  of  the 
times.  "The  Christian  Church,"  he  writes, 
"did  much  to  soften  and  abolish  slavery  and 
serfdom."  ■  The  fall  of  the  Roman  Empire 
also  contributed  to  their  relief.  Slavery 
gradually  became  toned  down  to  a  more  hu- 
mane condition  known  as  serfdom  where 
they  became  attached  to  the  household  of 
their  masters. 

According  to  Ashley,  "serfdom  remained 
the  condition  of  the  majority  In  the  lower 
order  of  society  from  the  sixth  to  the  twelfth 
century.  The  system  amounted  to  a  modi- 
fied form  of  slavery.     Personal  ownership 

disappears,  but  the  serf  belongs  in  general 
to  the  land  and  is  bound  to  the  soil,  or  is 
obliged  to  give  personal  service.  He  must 
work  a  part  of  the  week  on  his  master's 
1  History  of  Sodalina,  8th  edition,  p,  450. 


8       THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

land,  help  in  the  sowings  and  harvests,  and 
make  quarterly  payments  in  money  or  kind, 
besides  being  subject  to  various  fines."  * 
This  was  a  forward  step  in  the  betterment 
of  the  condition  of  the  laboring  class.  Serf- 
dom itself  was  transitory,  "with  no  other 
destination  than  leading  the  working  popu- 
lation up  to  the  state  of  entire  freedom."  2 

Serfs  soon  began  to  purchase  their  free- 
dom, many  were  liberated  by  their  Christian 
masters,  others  fled  to  the  growing  towns 
and  secured  their  freedom  by  avoiding  being 
claimed  by  their  masters  for  a  year  and  a 
day.  In  this  way  by  the  fourteenth  century 
serfdom  had  died  out  of  England  without 
any  legislation  against  it.  In  Spain  Ferdi- 
nand freed  all  serfs  in  1486.  In  Germany 
serfdom  continued  until  1817  while  in 
Russia  it  was  finally  abolished  only  in  1861.3 

The  period  which  marks  the  decline  of 
serfdom  in  England,  and  which  corresponds 
to  the  period  of  the  growth  of  craft  guilds, 
saw  great  advancements  in  the  condition  of 
laboring  classes.    The  period  of  the  full  de- 

1  English  Economic  History,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  9. 
aOp.  cit.,  p.  86. 

•Cf.    New    International    Encyclopedia,   Vol.    XXI,   Art. 
Slavery. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE       9 

velopment  of  the  system  of  craft  guilds  or 

the  latter  Middle  Ages  has  heen  called  by- 
many  the  "golden  era  of  labor."  '  The 
guild  legislation  "kept  steadily  before  itself 
the  ideal  of  combining  good  quality  and  a 
price  that  was  fair  to  the  consumer  with  a 
fitting  remuneration  to  the  workmen."" 

Until  the  fourteenth  century  the  period 
of  serfdom  was  not  disturbed  by  any  serious 
labor  trouble.  The  influence  of  the  teach- 
ings of  the  Christian  religion  effected  the 
removal  of  most  of  the  injustices  to  which 
the  laboring  class  had  previously  been  sub- 
jected. In  the  year  1381,  however,  a  revolt 
of  considerable  consequence  occurred  in 
England,  but  this  was  really  social  and  po- 
litical rather  than  economic  in  character.  A 
few  years  previous  to  this,  in  1850,  a  dis- 
pute arose  between  the  masters  and  the 
valets  among  the  shearmen  which  closely 
resembled  the  modern  strike  as  also  that 
among  the  weavers  in  1862.'  On  the  conti- 
nent "we  have  reference  to  a  strike  in  Ger- 
many among  the  girdle  makers  as  early  as 

■Rogers,  Work  .-mil   Wages,  p.  S08]   Potter,  Development 
of  English  Thought,  p.  Ki 

»Cf.  Asl.l.v,  op.  lit..  Vol.  II.  p.  1G9. 
■Ibid.,  p.  108. 


10    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

1329,  and  in  1349  the  tanners  of  Paris  struck 
for  an  increase  of  wages."  * 

The  advent  of  the  sixteenth  century  "Re- 
formation" produced  a  great  change  in  the 
condition  of  labor.  Largely  through  the 
influence  of  the  Catholic  Church,  the  masses 
of  the  laboring  classes  had  been  raised  from 
the  condition  which,  according  to  the  old 
Roman  and  Germanic  law,  placed  them  "on 
a  level  with  cattle  and  other  mobilia,"  to 
one  which  has  been  frequently  termed  by 
impartial  historians  "the  golden  age  of  la- 
bor." This  condition  was  soon  overturned, 
and  within  the  space  of  a  few  decades  the 
laboring  classes  were  again  reduced  to  a 
condition  of  degradation  not  much  better 
than  that  which  existed  under  ancient 
slavery.  "The  Reformation,"  says  Bruno 
Schoenlank,  a  great  non-Catholic  authority 
on  this  subject,  "was  drawing  its  social  con- 
clusions, the  golden  age  of  the  laborer  was 
coming  to  an  end,  capitalism  began  to  bestir 
itself."  2  In  his  History  of  Agricultural 
Prices  in  England,  J.  E.  T.  Rogers  de- 
clares that  "the  masses  of  the  people  were 


1  Adams    and   Summer,    Labor    Problems,   p.    177.      New 
York,  1915. 

aSociale  Kampfe  vor  300  Jaren,  p.  51. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     11 

the  Losers  by  the  Reformation."  As  early 
as  the  period  "between  1.341  and  1601  it 
was  necessary  to  pass  twelve  acts  of  Parlia- 
ment with  the  distinct  object  of  providing 
relief  against  destitution."1 

Sonic  idea  of  the  degradation  to  which  the 
laboring  class  sank  under  the  individualistic, 
"laissez  faire"  policy  generated  by  the  Re- 
formation can  he  gathered  from  the  state- 
ment of  Professor  Hayes  of  Columbia  Uni- 
versity. Even  children  could  no  longer  be 
counted  as  free.  "There  was  a  law  by 
which  pauper  children  could  he  forced  to 
work,  and  under  this  law  thousands  of  poor 
children,  five  and  six  years  old,  were  taken 
from  homes,  sent  from  parish  to  parish  to 
work  in  factories,  and  bought  and  sold  in 
gangs  like  slaves.  In  factories  they  were  set 
to  work  without  pay.  If  they  refused  to 
work  irons  were  put  around  their  ankles, 
and  they  were  chained  to  the  machine,  and 
at  night  they  were  locked  up  in  the  sleep- 
ing huts.  The  working  day  was  long — 
from  five  or  six  in  the  morning  until  nine 
or  ten  at   night.     Often  the  children  felt 

their  arms  ache  with  fatigue  and  their  eye- 
lids grow  heavy  with  sleep,  but  they  were 
1  Vol  i,  p.  10. 


12    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

kept  awake  by  the  whip  of  the  overseer. 
Many  of  the  little  children  died  of  over- 
work, and  others  were  carried  off  by  dis- 
eases which  were  bred  by  filth,  fatigue,  and 
insufficient  food." *  Anti-slavery  orators 
dilated  eloquently  upon  the  miseries  of  the 
negroes,  while  the  children  of  Englishmen 
at  home,  as  Sir  Robert  Peel  said  in  1816, 
"torn  from  their  beds  were  compelled  to 
work,  at  the  age  of  six  years,  from  early 
morn  till  late  at  night  a  space  of  perhaps 
fifteen  or  sixteen  hours  under  lashes  of  even 
more  heartless  slave-masters.  Such  was  the 
institution  that  had  replaced  the  apprentice- 
ship system  of  the  Catholic  guilds  of  the 
Middle  Ages."  2  In  Germany  about  1650 
the  Nurnberg  City  Council  commanded  the 
silk  weavers'  journeymen  to  "observe  the 
fear  of  God  and  a  fifteen-hour  work-day."  3 
With  the  passing  of  the  medieval  guilds, 
"labor  became  a  commodity  like  all  other 
commodities.  It  must  enter  into  com- 
petition upon  the  open  market."  4  With 
the  removal  of  guild  restrictions  "the  way 

1  Hayes,  Carlton  J.   H.,  A   Political  and   Social  History 
of  Europe,  Vol.  II,  pp.  85,  86. 

1  Husslein,  Democratic  Industry,  p.  217. 

•  Schoenla.uk,  op.  cit.,  p.  146. 

4  Lewis,  The  Rise  of  the  American  Proletariat,  p.  27. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     13 

was  now  open  for  political  autocracy  and 
for  individual   capitalism.      What    followed 

is  too  well  known  to  call  for  description. 
The  domestic  system,  the  factory  system, 
and  the  industrial  revolution  are  successive 
milestones.  With  each  step  forward 
towards  a  loudly  acclaimed  national  pros- 
pi  trity  the  toiling  masses  were  ground  more 
helplessly  beneath  the  feet  of  that  merciless 
idol  of  modern  commercialism  to  which  the 
Reformation  had  surrendered  them." 1 
Tennyson  could  describe  the  England  of 
his  day  in  the  following  lines: 

'•Then-  among  the  glooming  alleys 
Progress  halts  on  palsied  feet, 
Crime  and  hunger  cast  our  maidens 
By  tin'  t housands  on  the  b1  reet. 

"There  the  master  scrimps  his  haggard  sempstress 

Of  her  daily  bread, 
There  a   single  sordid   at  tie 

Holds  the  living  and  the  dead."' 

Indeed  it  would  not  be  very  difficult  to 
reduplicate  this  picture  even  in  our  own  day. 
The  Coal  Commission  of  England  in  i(.)i!> 

showed  that  "in  one  town  alone  27>OO0  out 
of  88,000  people  were  living  in  one  or  two- 

1  Husslcin,  op.  <it.,  p.  305. 

■Lockslej  li  ill  Si\t\   Yean  After. 


14.    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

room  houses;  in  another  twenty-eight  per 
cent  of  the  population  was  living  in  houses 
of  one  room  only.  In  Lanarkshire  out  of 
188,000  children  born  22,000  die  before  they 
reach  the  age  of  one  year."  * 

Is  it  any  wonder  that  the  masses  of  the 
people  should  revolt  against  such  a  system 
and  endeavor  to  free  themselves  from  the 
galling  yoke  of  economic  slavery?  Yet 
even  the  laws  of  the  land  conspired  against 
the  workers  to  prevent  any  betterment  of 
their  condition.  In  England  "until  the 
year  1824,"  when  the  combination  laws  were 
repealed,  "any  combination  to  raise  wages 
was  illegal."  2 

In  France  by  a  law  of  May  25,  1864, 
coalitions  of  workers  were  allowed  provided 
they  were  not  accompanied  by  threats  or 
violence.3  It  was  only  in  1871  that  labor- 
ers' associations  were  given  civil  recognition 
in  England  and  in  1884  in  France.  Al- 
though strikes,  as  such,  have  never  been 
illegal  in  the  United  States,  still,  until  1830, 


1  The  London  Universe,  March  21,  1919,  Quoted  by  Huss- 
lein,  Christian  Democracy,  p.  193. 

2  New   International  Encyclopedia,  .Vol.  91,  Art.   Strikes 
and  Lockouts. 

sCf.  Garriguet,  Regime  du  Travail,  p.  129,  Paris,  1908. 


THK  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     15 

they  were  prohibited  by  the  conspiracy  laws 
of  the  country.1 

However,  the  laws  forbidding  associa- 
tions of  laborers  and  suppressing  strikes  for 
the  betterment  of  their  condition  were  not 
always  effective.  "Several  serious  strikes 
occurred  dining  these  periods.  One  of  the 
most  formidable  was  that  of  the  workers  at 
Lyons  in  1881.  In  1810,  even  in  spite  of 
most  rigorous  prohibitory  laws,  a  strike 
which  lasted  four  months  of  30,000  workers 
occurred  in  Lancashire,  England."  ~  Yet 
the  number  of  sueh  strikes  in  violation  of 
existing  laws  was  but  small.  In  the  United 
States  "the  tirst  strike  of  which  there  is  any 
knowledge  took  place  in  New  York  in  the 
year  1741." 3  Even  with  the  restrictive 
prohibitions  removed,  the  number  of  indus- 
trial disturbances  remained  small  for  quite 
a  number  of  years.  It  may  be  said  then 
that  the  Strike  problem  is  truly  a  modern 
one.  During  the  period  of  almost  a  cen- 
tury and  a  half  succeeding  the  appearance 
of  the  firs!  strike  in  New  York  in  1741  the 
Commissions  rof  Labor  has  been  able  to  find 
evidence  of  the  occurrence  of  only   1440 

'New  Internal imril  Encyclopedia,  op.  ctt. 

*  ('•.irri:  act,  op,   <it.,   j>.    I  :'i. 

*  Adiun.s  and  Summi  r,  l,.ii><>r  Problems,  p.  177. 


16    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

strikes  and  lockouts  in  this  country.1  Dur- 
ing the  quarter  of  a  century  succeeding  this 
(1881-1906)  the  actual  strikes  and  lockouts 
recorded  give  the  number  as  36,757,2  while, 
notwithstanding  the  urgent  request  of  the 
National  War  Labor  Board  "that  there 
should  be  no  strikes  or  lockouts  during  the 
war,"  3  during  the  first  two  years  of  this 
country's  participation  in  the  Great  War,  no 
less  than  8,644  strikes  and  lockouts  were 
recorded. 4  During  the  year  1918-1919 
the  strikes  and  lockouts  for  the  first  nine 
months  numbered  2,837,  many  of  which 
were  strikes  of  more  than  ordinary  magni- 
tude, such  as  "the  general  strike  of  367,000 
steel  workers  beginning  September  22,  and 
involving  most  of  the  steel  centers  of  this 
country,  and  the  strike  of  250,000  railway 
shopmen  in  August,"  etc.5 

The  strike  was  an  event  comparatively 
rare  half  a  century  ago.  The  number  in 
our  days  has  increased  so  rapidly  that  they 
now  in  the  United  States  average  at  least 


1  Cf.  Adams  and  Summer,  op.  cit. 

2  21st    Annual    Report    of   the    Commissioner    of    Labor, 
Strikes  and  Lockouts,  1906. 

3  The  Forum,  Vol.  60,  p.  331. 

*Cf.    Monthly    Labor    Review,    U.    S.    Dept.    of    Labor, 
June,  1919,  p.  308. 
6  Monthly  Labor  Review,  Dec,  1919,  p.  369. 


Till:  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     17 

ten  a  day.  with  some  of  them  of  such  magni- 
tude and  so  far  reaching  in  their  evil  effects 
that  not  a  few  sober-minded  persons  have 
been  considering  seriously  the  question 
whether  strikes  can  be  defended  at  all,  or 
if  they  can  be  defended  in  particular  in- 
stances, whether  they  should  not,  on  account 
of  their  frequent  and  general  tendency  to 
occasion  an  almost  continual  disturbance  of 
the  social  and  industrial  relations,  be  con- 
demned as  constituting  a  real  menace  to 
society.  Such  would  seem  to  be  the  opinion 
expressed  by  no  less  a  person  than  the  late 
President  of  Harvard  University.  In  a  full 
page  article  in  the  Sunday  issue  of  the  New 
York  Times,  entitled  "Why  the  Public  lias 
Lost  Sympathy  with  Strikes/'  Dr.  Eliot 
states  that  "until  recently  the  mass  of  the 
American  people  has  usually  felt  a  general 
sympathy  with  the  workinginen  and  women 
who  have  struck"  .  .  .  but  "within  the  last 
six  years  the  opinion  and  sentiments  of  the 
mass  of  American  people  about  strikes  have 
been  undergoing  a  remarkable  change, 
slowly  at  first  hut  later  rapidly."  '  Some 
would  even  go  so  far  as  to  say  that  strikes 

'March  7,  1P20. 


18    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

constitute  such  a  serious  menace  to  society 
as  to  call  for  Federal  and  State  prohibitory- 
legislation,  if  not  on  the  score  of  their  being 
intrinsically  immoral,  at  least  as  a  necessary 
measure  for  the  promotion  of  the  common 
welfare  of  the  State. 


II 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 
INTRINSICALLY  CONSIDERED 

IN  the  broad  and  general  sense  of  the 
term  a  strike  may  be  defined  as  a  cessa- 
tion from  work  by  a  number  of  em- 
ployees, but  in  the  narrower  and  more  tech- 
nical sense  a  strike  is  an  organized  cessation 
of  work  on  the  part  of  a  number  of  workmen 
in  an  industry  for  the  purpose  of  enforcing 
certain  demands  from  the  employer.  There 
are,  it  would  seem,  three  essential  elements 
in  any  strike:  first,  there  is  the  cessation 
from  work  of  at  least  a  considerable  number 
of  the  employees  of  an  industry;  secondly, 
tin's  cessation  of  work  is  a  combined  and  or- 
ganized movement,-  any  number  of  persons 
might  relinquish  their  positions  in  a  particu- 
lar employment  at  the  same  time,  but  unless 
there  is  concerted  action  there  is  no  strike; 

thirdly,  the  organized  cessation  of  work  on 
the  part  of  the  laborers  is  for  a  definite  pur- 

19 


20     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

pose  bearing  on  their  relations  with  the  em- 
ployer. The  purpose  of  a  strike  is  to  secure 
certain  demands  which  those  who  strike 
endeavor  to  obtain  through  a  suspension  of 
work,  both  by  refusing  to  work  themselves, 
and  by  endeavoring  to  prevent  others  from 
occupying  the  positions  temporarily  vacated. 
It  is  hardly  ever  the  intention  of  the  strikers 
in  quitting  work  to  seek  employment  else- 
where, but  to  get  back  their  old  jobs  when 
they  shall  have  secured  the  advantage 
sought.  The  employer,  too,  usually  desires 
that  the  strikers  return  to  work  for  him, 
even  if  the  strike  has  been  long  and  violent. 
To  have  to  take  on  an  entirely  new  staff  of 
laborers  would  be  a  real  loss  to  him.  He, 
therefore,  endeavors  to  utilize  whatever 
means  are  available  to  compel  the  men  to 
return  to  work  without  his  having  granted 
their  demands. 

In  determining  the  lawfulness  or  unlaw- 
fulness of  any  action  a  fundamental  con- 
sideration is  the  morality  of  the  act  inse/i.  e., 
its  intrinsic  morality.  If  an  action  can  be 
condemned  on  that  score,  no  purpose,  how- 
ever lofty,  nor  circumstances,  however  un- 
usual, can  justify  the  placing  of  such  action. 
If  the  strike,  then,  can  be  condemned  on  the 


TIIK  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     21 

ground  that  it  is  intrinsically  immoral — if 
any  of  its  essential  elements  can  be  con- 
demned on  the  score  that  they  involve  the 
violation  of  necessary  relations,  then  there 
is  no  further  necessity  of  entering  into  a 
detailed  consideration  of  the  various  ele- 
ments that  might  enter  into  a  particular 
case.  If  a  strike  is  intrinsically  immoral,  no 
modifying  conditions  of  methods,  time, 
place,  or  other  circumstances  can  render  it 
morally  justifiable. 

Are  the  acts  which  necessarily  enter  into 
the  constitution  of  a  strike  immoral?  Can 
either  of  the  three  essential  elements  of  a 
strike  be  condemned  as  immoral  in  se? 

In  answer  to  these  questions  it  may  be 
stated  in  the  first  place  that  strikes  are  no- 
where declared  to  be  intrinsically  immoral, 
neither  in  the  Encyclical  Rcrum  Novarwm 
of  Pope  Leo  XIII, — which  may  be  consid- 
ered as  the  official  formulation  of  the 
Church's  teachings  on  the  moral  issues 
involved  in  the  labor  and  other  economic 
problems, — nor  in  the  writings  of  Catholic 
moralists.  This  fact,  while  not  justifying  us 
in  concluding  that  strikes  are  not  intrinsi- 
cally immoral,  does  furnish  a  strong  pre- 
sumption in  favor  of  such  a  contention.    In 


22     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

fact  the  Encyclical  in  its  treatment  of  the 
strike  and  labor  problems  implicitly  assumes 
that  such  a  contention  is  a  true  and  valid 
one,  while  all  moralists,  who  deal  with  the 
strike  question,  not  only  assume  the  validity 
of  such  a  contention,  but  even  lay  down 
certain  conditions  under  which  they  declare 
a  strike  to  be  licit. 

As  there  exists  "no  positive  divine  or 
ecclesiastical  law  against  strikes"  1  nor  any 
general  civil  law,  they  can  only  be  con- 
demned as  intrinsically  immoral  because 
they  necessarily  involve  some  violation  of 
the  natural  law.  Such  a  claim,  however, 
can  in  no  way  be  substantiated.  Under 
certain  conditions  or  in  particular  instances, 
it  is  true,  such  a  violation  may  occur,  but 
the  cause  of  this  violation  must  be  laid  to 
extrinsic  relations,  rather  than  to  the  intrin- 
sic nature  of  the  strike  itself. 

The  first  element  of  the  strike — the  cessa- 
tion of  work — scarcely  requires  a  formal 
justification,  for  every  man  has  a  full  and 
clear  right  to  resign  his  employment  at  any 
time  he  wishes,  provided  he  does  not  violate 
any  other  person's  right  in  so  doing.    Many 

1  Macksey,  Argumenta  Sociologica,  p.  128.    Rome,  1918. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     23 

theologians  '  would  contend  that,  apart  from 
the  obligation  based  on  contract  between 
employer  and  employed,  a  man  has  the  un- 
restricted right  to  decide  for  himself  when 
and  under  what  conditions  he  will  work  and 
consequently  they  are  of  the  opinion  that  he 
has  the  full  and  clear  right  to  quit  his  work 
whenever  he  chooses.  According  to  such 
authorities  a  man's  natural  right  to  quit  his 
job  is  so  extensive  that  he  could  never,  apart 
from  the  violation  of  valid  contracts  between 
himself  and  an  employer,  violate  justice  in 
so  doing.  "At  most  an  obligation  might 
arise  in  charity  not  to  leave  off  work  where 
the  cessation  of  labor  would  put  a  master  to 
great  loss  and  expense."  a  This  is  a  matter 
for  the  individual  laborer  to  determine,  as 
it  is  for  the  employer  to  say  whom  and  how 
long  he  will  employ  a  particular  person  or 
whether  he  will  employ  anyone  at  all. 

Such  a  view  of  the  relations  existing  be- 
tween the  employer  and  the  laborer  would 
seem  to  be  untenable.  "The  employer  and 
the  employee  are  too  intimately  dependent 
upon  each  other  in  the  realization  of  their 
natural   rights  to  make  arbitrary  severance 

1  Vermeersch,   Qaaestionea    de    .lust.,    a.    474-l>.     Cronin, 
The  Science  of  Ethics,  Vol  II,  p.  :<■"><',  N    V.,  ism. 
'Cronin,  op.  oit..  Vol.  II.  p.  So". 


24     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

of  their  relations  consistent  with  justice."  1 
It  can  be  no  argument  to  say  that,  as 
there  is  no  contract  compelling  the  em- 
ployer to  retain  the  laborer,  both  are  conse- 
quently free  from  all  obligations  in  the 
matter,  any  more  than  the  absence  of  an 
agreement  to  pay  a  living  wage  can  free  him 
from  his  strict  obligation  in  justice  in  this 
matter.  Man's  abstract  right  to  a  decent 
living  from  the  goods  of  the  earth,  and  his 
concrete  right  to  wages  by  which  he  actual- 
izes this  general  right  is  not  properly  and 
reasonably  safeguarded,  unless  it  includes 
the  further  right  to  continue  in  the  employ- 
ment and  receive  wages  from  a  particular 
employer  for  whom  he  is  performing  his 
tasks  efficiently,  as  long  as  the  employer  is 
able  to  pay  him  and  continues  operations. 
Relationship  and  environment  create  special 
obligations  which  bind  not  merely  in  charity 
but  also  in  justice.2  It  is  certain  that  an 
employer  can  discharge  a  man  for  a  reason- 
able cause.  A  reasonable  cause  will  remove 
the  binding  force  of  the  obligation  which  his 
special  relation  to  his  employer  created.  It 
seems  equally  true  that  in  the  absence  of  a 

1  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  116. 
3Cf.  Ryan,  op.  cit.,  p.  111. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     2fi 

reasonable  cause  the  employee's  right  to  a 
decent  living,  which  he  can  only  actualize 
by  the  exercise  of  his  labor  at  a  particular 
job,  should  not  be  interfered  with  by  his 
being  dismissed  at  the  arbitrary  will  of  the 
employer.  The  conclusion  seems  reasonable 
that  "men  who  are  performing  tasks 
efficiently  and  to  whom  discharge  will  bring 
grave  inconvenience,  have  a  right  to  their 
jobs  that  differ  only  in  degree  from  the  right 
to  a  living  wage  and  the  right  to  first  occu- 
pancy." On  the  other  hand  and  for  the 
same  reasons  "the  employer  has  a  cor- 
responding right  to  the  services  of  his  em- 
ployees as  long  as  he  treats  them  justly. 
They  do  him  an  injustice  if  they  leave  him 
without  a  reasonable  cause."  1  So  it  would 
seem  that  the  theory,  that  "employees  have 
not  only  a  legal  right  but  a  moral  right  to 
quit  work  whenever  they  choose  and  that  the 
employer  enjoys  the  corresponding  right  to 
arbitrarily  dismiss  his  employees,"  is  quite 
untenable.  "Striking  workmen  have  some 
moral  tie,  if  not  technical  or  legal  rights  in 
their  general  position  towards  their  recent 
employer.  The  'cash'  nexus  is  not  the  only 
one.    When  that  has  been  broken  and  wages 

1  Op.  cit,  p.   1 1  9. 


26     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

are  no  longer  paid  and  received,  there  is  still 
a  bond  of  some  sort.  So  they  feel  and 
society  substantially  agrees  with  them.  .  .  . 
Even  the  employer  is  likely  to  speak  of 
them  as  his  workmen,  implying  that  there  is 
yet  a  tie  of  some  kind  between  them."  x 

No  matter  which  theory  we  hold,  it 
remains  true  that  the  individual  has  the  right 
to  quit  work  for  any  reasonable  cause.  This 
is  particularly  true  if  the  conditions  are 
unjust  or  if  the  employer  refuses  to  accede 
to  his  reasonable  demands.  "A  man  is  by 
nature  free  to  give  or  withhold  his  labor. 
He  is  justified  in  withdrawing  the  labor  he 
has  been  furnishing  when  he  suffers  a  wrong 
in  some  condition  of  his  work."  2  He  has 
the  right  to  stipulate  as  a  condition  of  his 
returning  to  work  that  the  unsatisfactory 
conditions  be  remedied  or  the  injustice  be 
removed.  This  being  so,  there  is  nothing  in 
the  nature  of  the  case  that  would  constitute 
a  violation  of  justice  or  render  the  act 
immoral  should  several  or  all  of  the  individ- 
uals in  the  employ  exercise  their  right  to 
quit  work  when  conditions  are  not  satisfac- 

1Gilman,  Methods  of  Industrial  Peace,  p.  252,  N.  Y., 
1904. 

a  Parkinson,  A  Primer  of  Social  Science,  p.  129,  N.  Y„ 
1913. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     *7 

tory  or  for  some  other  reasonable  cause. 
Nor  can  it  be  said  that,  by  entering  unto  an 
agreement  among  themselves  to  do  so,  they 
thereby  render  their  action  immoral.  For 
"if  eaeli  man  has  a  right  against  his  employer 
to  refuse  to  work  except  on  his  own  condi- 
tions, he  has  a  right  to  refuse  to  work  except 
on  conditions  to  which  he  and  his  fellow- 
workers  have  agreed.  The  fact  of  entering 
into  an  agreement  cannot  of  itself  be  a  viola- 
tion of  any  right,  if  every  party  to  the 
agreement  has  a  right  to  do  that  to  which 
he  commits  himself  by  agreement."  '  It  is 
true  that  there  is  a  great  difference  between 
men  singly  refusing  to  work  and  combining 
to  refuse  to  work,  and  to  prevent  others 
from  filling  the  positions  vacated.  Hut  the 
difference  is  one  of  effect  rather  than  one 
affecting  the  essential  relations  between  the 
employer  and  the  workmen.  "There  is  no 
difference  as  far  as  justice  is  concerned, 
unless  there  is  some  species  of  injustice 
implied  in  the  means  of  combination  or  in 
the  influence  brought  to  bear  on  others."  ' 

With  regard  to  the  first  of  these,  VIZ,',  the 
use  of  organization  to  effect  their  purpose, 

1  Kelleber,  Irian  Theol.  Quart,  Vol  7,  p.  6. 

1  Kellt'lit  r,  n|t.   fit.,   p.    I  J. 


28     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

we  may  say  that  of  itself  it  involves  no 
immorality.  It  is  but  a  manifestation  of  the 
natural  right  of  association.  "To  enter 
society  of  this  kind  is  the  natural  right  of 
man.  .  .  .  The  experience  of  his  own  weak- 
ness urges  man  to  call  for  help  from  with- 
out." 1  Man's  nature  as  well  as  the  experi- 
ence of  ages  teaches  him  that  "he  cannot 
effectively  pursue  happiness  nor  attain  to  a 
reasonable  degree  of  self-perfection  unless 
he  unites  his  energies  with  those  of  his 
fellows."  2  In  the  religious,  moral,  political, 
intellectual,  and  purely  social  departments 
of  life  the  dependence  of  man  upon  his 
fellow  beings  and  the  need  of  association  is 
evidenced  by  the  innumerable  types  and 
forms  of  societies  which  have,  as  it  were, 
spontaneously,  sprung  into  being.  They  re- 
spond to  a  fundamental  need  of  man's 
nature  in  the  working  out  of  his  destiny. 

In  the  economic  order  the  need  of  associa- 
tion is  equally  urgent  and  in  accordance 
with  man's  nature.  "Since  the  individual  is 
dependent  upon  so  many  other  individuals 
for  many  of  these  material  goods  that  are 
indispensable  to  him,   he  must  frequently 

1Leo  XIII,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 
3  Op.  cit. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     29 

combine  with  those  of  his  neighbors  who  are 
similarly  placed  if  he  would  successfully 
resist  the  tendency  of  modern  forces  to  over- 
look and  override  the  mere  individual."  l 
Association  is  not  only  in  accordance  with 
nature,  but  it  would  seem  to  be  a  necessary 
means  of  safeguarding  the  individual  work- 
man against  injustice.  It  is  not  too  much 
to  say  thai  "nature  has  dictated  'association' 
as  a  means  of  safeguarding  the  human  race. 
Thereby  strength  is  acquired,  means  are 
provided  for  living  in  greater  security, 
enjoying  tranquillity  and  happiness  while 
facilities  which  are  conducive  to  well-being 
are  at  hand."  a  We  may  safely  conclude, 
therefore,  that  "laborers  have  a  moral  right 
to  unite  to  obtain  better  terms  from  their 
employers,  if  this  action  would  involve  no 
injustice  to  either  the  employer  or  the  con- 
sumer." '■'■ 

Nor  can  it  be  said  that  the  strike  is 
immoral  on  the  score  that  it  necessarily  vio- 
lates the  natural  right  of  the  employer  to 
"freedom  of  contract''  with  other  laborers. 


1  Hyan,  The  Church  ud  Socialism,  p.  101.  Wash.,  D.  C, 
1919. 

•O'Herby,  C    m.  The  I  ibor  Problem,  Irish  Bed  Ree. 

'Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  101.  Wash,  D.  C, 
1919. 


30     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

As  long  as  the  workers  have  a  just  cause  for 
striking  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  the 
strikers  to  dissuade  others  from  taking  up 
the  positions  temporarily  vacated  violates  no 
strict  right  of  the  employer  as  long  as  the 
methods  used  are  justifiable.  Although 
the  strikers  have  stopped  working  they  have 
not  severed  all  connection  with  their  em- 
ployers or  their  work.  It  is  their  intention 
to  resume  the  jobs  vacated  as  soon  as  their 
demands  are  granted.  And  if  these 
demands  are  just  in  themselves  there  can  be, 
in  the  nature  of  the  case,  no  valid  reason 
why  the  strikers  should  not  be  permitted  to 
use  means  that  are  licit  in  themselves  for 
the  attainment  of  their  end.  "The  employ- 
ers certainly  cannot  have  a  strict  right  that 
the  men  abstain  from  such  attempts  at  dis- 
suasion," 1  as  may  induce  others  to  refrain 
from  accepting  employment  from  one  who 
refuses  just  terms  to  his  laborers.  Surely 
when  men  are  striving  for  a  just  share  in 
the  proceeds  of  an  industry,  or  for  condi- 
tions of  employment  that  are  reasonable,  it 
cannot  be  said  that,  by  pointing  out  that 
interference  on  the  part  of  others  would 
work  hardship  on  themselves  and  involve  a 

1  Kelleher,  op.  cit.,  p.  4. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     31 

setback  to  the  .just  cause  of  labor,  or  that 
by  urging  these  and  similar  motives  to  dis- 
suade others  from  taking-  the  vacated  posi- 
tions, they  violate  any  strict  right  of  the 
employer. 

It  may  be  objected  that  such  action  on 
the  part  of  the  strikers  violates  the  em- 
ployer's natural  right  to  freedom  of  con- 
tract and  consequently  thai  justice  forbids 
the  use  of  persuasion  to  prevent  others  from 
working  for  the  employer  against  whom 
they  happen  to  be  striking.  This  argument, 
plausible  as  it  may  seem,  is  not  a  valid  one. 
In  the  first  place  as  the  term  is  popularly 
understood  "the  rule  of  free  contract  is 
unjust"  botli  because  "many  labor  contracts 
are  not  free  in  any  genuine  sense"  and  lie- 
cause  "it  takes  no  account  of  the  moral 
claims  or  needs  .  .  .  which  constitute  the 
primary  title  or  claim  to  material  goods."1 
Besides  in  its  genuine  and  valid  sense  "'free- 
dom of  contract"  does  not  mean  that  no 
interference  at  all  is  permitted,  that  by 
legitimate  means  such  as  advice,  persuasion, 
just  fear,  etc.,  one  may  not  for  some  good 
reason,  endeavor  to  induce  either  party  not 

to  enter  into  an  agreement,  or  that  one  may 

'Ryan.    Dlstrib.    .lusL.    pp.    S3Q-331,   S.57,    N.    Y.,    IMA 


32     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

not  diminish  the  opportunities  for  entering 
into  that  contract.  It  is  hard  to  see  how 
acts  which  are  licit  in  themselves  can  become 
immoral  or  unjust  merely  because  they 
interfere  with  the  exercise  of  freedom  of 
contract,  for  that  natural  right  imposes  no 
further  obligations  on  others  than  that  they 
should  refrain  from  any  action  which  would 
unjustly  interfere  with  the  opportunities  of 
others  from  entering  into  favorable  con- 
tract. 

In  the  case  of  strikes  where  persuasive 
methods  are  used  to  prevent  fellow-workers 
from  continuing  work  or  others  from  filling 
the  positions  vacated,  although  the  employ- 
er's freedom  of  contract  may  be  seriously 
curtailed,  and  although  it  generally  is  the 
intention  of  the  strikers  that  such  should 
be  the  effect,  still  "there  is  no  violation  of 
a  strict  right  provided  there  be  nothing 
unjust  in  any  of  the  different  acts  by  which 
the  restriction  of  freedom  is  brought 
about."  * 

It  might  happen  in  a  particular  instance, 
owing  to  peculiar  or  exceptional  circum- 
stances, that  such  acts  would  involve  a  viola- 

1Kelleher,  op.  cit,  p.  5;   Noldin,  Theol.   Mor.,  Vol.   II, 
N.  306  (3),  N.  Y.,  1914. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    88 

tioii  of  charity.  In  such  a  case  the  con- 
demnation of  the  use  of  persuasion  arises 
from  special  external  relations,  and  not  on 
the  ground  of  intrinsic  morality.  To  refuse 
to  continue  to  work,  to  agree  among  them- 
selves to  do  so,  and  to  use  their  powers  of 
persuasion  to  induce  others  to  refrain  from 
working,  arc  acts  perfectly  moral  in  them- 
selves and  perfectly  just  for  the  workmen, 
provided  they  do  not  thereby  violate  any 
strict  right  of  either  the  employer  or  the 
general  public. 

The  employer  can  have  no  such  strict 
right  unless  the  laborers  have  entered  into 
a  valid  contract  with  him.  Where  such  con- 
tracts exist  the  laborers'  natural  right  to 
stop  work  when  they  please  is  suspended  for 
the  time  being  and  as  long  as  the  \  :i lid  con- 
tract endures.  All  just  contracts  between 
the  employer  and  employee  must  he  fulfilled. 
Not  only  does  justice  demand  this,  hut  the 
general  good  of  the  laboring  class  is  best 
obtained  and  safeguarded  by  the  punctual 
and  complete  fulfillment  of  all  valid  con- 
tracts. The  general  welfare  of  society  also 
demands  that  contractual  relationship  be 
preserved.  As  long  as  such  a  contract  exists 
and  perseveres,  the  laborers  can  in  no  way 


34    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

be  justified  in  striking.  Employers,  as  well 
as  employees,  have  a  strict  right  that  all 
just  contracts  expressed  or  implied  between 
themselves  be  scrupulously  carried  out.  No 
strike  can  be  morally  countenanced  which 
violates  a  just  contract  that  has  been  freely 
entered  into  by  both  parties  and  whose  terms 
are  carefully  carried  out  by  the  employer. 
To  declare  a  strike  while  such  a  contract 
endures  is  to  inflict  a  manifest  injustice  on 
the  employer.1  "For  religion  teaches  the 
workmen  to  carry  out  honestly  and  well  all 
equitable  agreements  freely  made."  2  So 
the  strike  of  the  printers  and  longshoremen 
in  New  York  and  of  the  street  railway 
employees  in  Chicago  during  the  summer  of 
1919  were  morally  indefensible,  although 
their  demands  may  not  have  been  unjust, 
because  such  strikes  involved  the  violation 
of  contracts  and  agreements  which  "were 
freely  and  honestly  made"  and  therefore, 
"morally  binding."  3 

But  it  may  sometimes  happen  that  where 
a  contract    exists,    the    workmen    are    not 

1  Cf.  Vermeersch,  Quaest.  de  Just.,  n.  474  (a) ;  Pottier, 
De  Just,  et  Jure,  n.  176;  Noldin,  op.  cit,  n.  306  (2); 
Genicot,  Theol.  Moral.,  Vol.  II,  n.  22;  Tanquerey,  Theol. 
Moral.,  Vol.  II,  n.  844. 

2  Leo  XIII,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 

3  Cath.  Char.  Rev.,  Editorial,  Nov.,  1919,  p.  263. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     35 

morally  bound  to  observe  its  terms  either 
because  it  never  bad  any  morally  binding 
force  on  account  of  some  defect  or  because 
it  bas  lost  its  original  binding  force.  Tbe 
contract  between  the  employer  and  tbe 
laborers  may  have  been  invalid  from  tbe  be- 
ginning, either  on  account  of  error  in  tbe 
real  terms  of  the  contract,  or  because  the 
agreement  contains  some  clause  or  clauses 
that  are  unjust.  An  example  of  this  would 
be  when  men  are  morally  forced  by  fear  of 
going  without  employment  to  agree  to  work 
for  a  wage  or  under  conditions  which  are 
manifestly  unjust.  Full  consent  of  the 
will  may  not  have  been  present  because  they 
were  drawn  by  force  or  fraud  or  the  exigen- 
cies of  their  economic  position  into  a  bargain 
unjust  to  themselves.  "The  laborer  who, 
from  fear  of  a  worse  evil,  enters  a  contract 
to  work  for  starvation  wages  cannot  be 
regarded  as  transferring  to  the  employer 
the  full  moral  right  to  tbe  services  which  he 
agrees  to  render.  Like  a  wayfarer  he 
merely  submits  to  superior  force.  .  .  .  His 
consent  is  vitiated  to  a  substantial  extent  by 
the  element  of  fear  when  he  is  compelled  by 
dire  necessity  to  aeeept  a  wage  that  is  insuf- 
ficient for  a  decent  livelihood.     The  agree- 


36     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ment  to  which  he  submits  in  these  circum- 
stances is  no  more  free  than  the  contract  by 
which  the  helpless  wayfarer  gives  up  his 
purse  to  escape  the  pistol  of  the  robber."  * 
As  necessity  compelled  them  to  accept  con- 
ditions that  were  manifestly  unjust  they  are 
not  morally  bound  by  the  terms  of  such  a 
contract. 

It  may  happen,  too,  that  a  contract  which 
was  valid  originally  becomes  invalid  and 
loses  its  binding  force  because  the  employer 
fails  to  fulfil  his  part  of  the  contract.  "His 
failure  to  carry  out  the  obligations  imposed 
upon  him  by  the  agreement  relieves  the 
workers  from  any  further  obligation  in  jus- 
tice as  far  as  the  contract  is  concerned."  2 
Even  where  the  employer  fulfils  all  the 
terms  of  the  contract  but  fails  to  treat  his 
men  justly  in  some  other  particular,  e.  g., 
compelling  them  to  work  under  conditions 
which  are  gravely  dangerous  to  health  or 
life,  the  men  may  be  morally  justified  in 
striking,3  for  as  Lehmkuhl  remarks,  "one 
may  refuse  service  due  in  justice  to  another 
in  order  to  force  him  to  desist  from  acting 

1  Ryan,  Distrib.  Just.,  pp.  329-30. 
2Garriguet,  Regime  du  Travail,  p.  133. 
sCf.  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  n.  474   (a). 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     37 

unjustly  towards  him."  In  these  cases  and 
where,  as  stated  above,  the  contract  was 
invalid    from   the   beginning,   the   laborers 

"can  without  violating  justice  go  on 
strike"1  in  order  to  enforce  their  just 
demands. 

According  to  Fr.  Kelleher  "it  is  only 
rarely  that  strikes  can  be  said  to  violate 
contracts,"  '  which  are  morally  binding  in 
justice.  Generally  there  is  no  such  contract 
existing  or  where  such  an  agreement  lias 
been  entered  into,  it  very  often  is  devoid  of 
real  moral  force  begetting  an  obligation  in 
justice.  If,  as  statistics  seem  to  indicate, 
a  "considerable  majority  of  both  male  and 
female  laborers  fail  to  obtain  living  wages" 
and,  according  to  Nearing  and  Grant,  four- 
fifths  of  the  workers  belong  to  this  class, 
being  compelled  by  economic  necessity  to 
labor  at  a  wage  below  the  minimum  of  jus- 
tice,    it     may     be     questioned     whether     the 

majority  of  contracts  beget  any  really  mora] 

obligation  of  justice  on  the  pari  of  the  labor- 
ers.    Therefore,  it  seems  quite  safe  to  Bay 

■Op.  dt,  p.   133. 
•Op.  dt,  p.  :i. 

'Ryan,  Dutrlb.  Just.,  p.  380]  cf.  Xcirinir,  Income,  p. 
LOG;  Grant,  Fair  Play  t'<>r  the  Workers,  p.  36 j  Catnonc 
Bishops'  Reconstruction  Program. 


38    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

that  many  of  the  wage  contracts  are  devoid 
of  really  moral  binding  force.  Yet  where 
such  agreement  exists  between  the  employer 
and  the  laborers  it  must  always  be  pre- 
sumed to  be  valid.  It  is  up  to  the  workmen 
to  show  that  the  contract  is  clearly  unjust 
or  invalid  from  the  beginning,  or  if  valid 
originally,  that  the  failure  of  the  employer 
to  live  up  to  his  part  of  the  contract  or  sub- 
sequent changes  made  arbitrarily  by  the 
employer  in  the  agreement  now  render  it 
null  and  void.  Against  the  overwhelming 
presumption  in  favor  of  the  binding  char- 
acter of  a  contract  entered  into  between 
laborers  and  an  employer,  only  clear  and 
conclusive  evidence  to  the  contrary  can 
relieve  the  laborers  from  their  obligations. 
"Both  morality  and  expediency  dictate  that 
labor  should  always  regard  its  contracts, 
agreements,  and  engagements  as  sacredly 
obligatory.".1  But  apart  from  valid  con- 
tracts there  is  nothing  in  the  nature  of  the 
case  by  which  the  laborer's  act  of  severance 
of  his  relations  with  his  employer  must 
necessarily  be  characterized  as  immoral  or 
unjust  as  violating  a  strict  right  of  the  em- 

^ath.  Char.  Rev.,  Editorial,  Not.,  1919,  p.  263. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     :39 

ployer.  While  it  may  be  true  that  "they  do 
him  an  injustice  if  they  leave  him  without  a 
reasonable  cause"  !  it  is  also  certain  that  the 
"corresponding  right  (of  the  employer)  to 
the  services  of  his  employees  lasts  only  as 
long  as  he  treats  them  justly."  2  Where  his 
treatment  of  his  laborers  involves  an  injus- 
tice, all  obligations,  whether  of  charity  or 
justice,  which  might  bind  the  laborer  to  con- 
tinue working  for  such  an  employer,  are  ab- 
rogated. So  that  if  he  ceases  work  or  strikes 
to  enforce  what  is  due  him  in  justice  he  does 
not  violate  any  strict  right  of  his  employer. 

Nor  can  it  be  held  that  the  strikers  violate 
any  strict  right  of  the  general  public  or  so- 
ciety in  their  cessation  from  labor.  It  may 
be  said  that  the  strikers  violate  the  rights 
of  society  because  the  increased  remunera- 
tion, which  the  strikers  in  a  particular  strike 
seek,  will  have  to  be  paid  largely  by  the  gen- 
eral public  in  their  capacity  as  consumers, 
or  because  the  dislocation  of  industry,  which 
every  strike  more  or  less  occasions,  inflicts 
considerable  loss  and  injury  on  the  public. 
Only  in  these  two  eases  could  a  strike  be  con- 

1  Hv.ui,  The  Chord)  and  Socialism,  p.  Hi,    Wash*  D.  c. 
1919. 

'Op.  cit 


40    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ceived   as  violating   a   strict   right   of  the 
public. 

Now  while  both  of  the  above  contentions 
may  be  partly  or  wholly  true  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  workers  are  bound  in  strict 
justice  to  refrain  from  striking  solely  on 
that  account.  In  the  first  place,  it  does  not 
follow  that  the  increased  remuneration 
which  the  laborers  seek  will  have  to  be  paid 
largely  by  the  general  public,  for  "higher 
wages  will  often  give  the  workers  both  the 
physical  capacity  and  the  spirit  that  makes 
possible  a  larger  output.  Thus  they  could 
themselves  equivalently  provide  a  part  at 
least  of  the  additional  remuneration." * 
Then  increased  managerial  and  mechanical 
efficiency  can  help  considerably,  as  is  seen  in 
the  tailoring  industry  in  England,  where 
"the  increased  costs  of  production  have  on 
the  whole  been  met  by  better  organization 
and  better  machinery."  2  This  is  also  shown 
in  the  case  of  the  Packard  Piano  Co.,  Fort 
Wayne,  Ind.,  in  the  William  Demuth  &  Co. 
pipe  factory,  New  York;  Sydney  Blumen- 
thal  &  Co.  weaving  mills,  Shelton,  Conn., 

1  Ryan,  Distrib.  Just.,  p.  409. 

2  Tawney,  Minimum  Rates  in  the  Tailoring  Industry,  p. 
161. 


Till:  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     41 

etc.1  Besides,  a  part  of  the  increase  1  wage 
cust  could  be  defrayed  out  of  the  enormous 
profits  which  at  times  the  capitalist  has  been 

allowed  to  amass,  often  much  to  the  detri- 
ment of  society. 

Should  these  sources  be  unable  to  provide 
for  the  "increased  remuneration  which  the 
strikers  seek,"  it  could  happen  that  the  gen- 
eral public  would  have  to  be  called  upon  to 
bear  a  portion  of  the  burden  of  providing  a 
just  wage  for  the  laborer,  as  well  as  to  suffer 
considerable  inconvenience  as  to  the  result 
of  the  strike,  yet  in  either  case  it  is  difficult 
to  show  that  labor  is  thereby  guilty  of  an 
injustice  to  the  public.  Society  or  the  con- 
sumer has  on  the  other  hand  obligations  to 
the  workmen  which  are  all  too  often  disre- 
garded and  "consumers  who  buy  an  article 
that  was  made  under  unjust  conditions  co- 
operate in  this  injustice    .    .    .    by  receiving 

the  goods,  by  furnishing  the  means  for  com- 
mitting the  injustice,  and   by  urging  such 

production  by  financial  support:  and  since 
the  social  necessity  of  getting  a  living  wage 
IS  beyond  contradiction,  the  Consuming  class 
who  benefit  especially  by  tlu-  labor  of  these 

*Cf.  John  Ldtch,  Man  to  Man,  The  Story  of  Industrial 
Democracy,  Chaps.   Ill,  IV,  V. 


42     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

workmen  are  especially  bound  to  see  that 
these  rights  are  obtained."  *  According  to 
Fr.  Cuthbert,  the  consumers  "who  patronize 
such  labor  contribute  to  the  sin,"  and  are  at 
times  more  responsible  for  the  injustice  done 
the  laborers  than  the  employers  for  "the  in- 
satiable yearning  to  buy  cheap  without  any 
thought  how  the  cheapness  is  obtained,  this 
is  the  incentive  which  tempts  men  to  buy 
cheap  labor  and  underpay  workmen.  Were 
people  in  general  not  willing  accomplices 
there  would  be  no  sweating  system,  no  un- 
fair competition.  The  sin  falls  not  on  the 
few  (manufacturers)  but  on  the  many 
(patrons)  who  too  readily  condone  the  sin 
of  the  few  for  the  sake  of  the  resultant  ad- 
vantage to  themselves.  They  pay  half  a 
penny  less  for  a  pound  of  sugar,  a  shilling  or 
two  less  for  a  ton  of  coal.  What  does  the 
public  care  that  the  shop  assistant  or  the 
miner  is  unable  to  get  a  human  wage?"  2 

What  right,  then,  has  the  public  to  de- 
mand that  the  laborers  continue  to  suffer 
manifest  injustice  in  order  that  it  be  not 
inconvenienced  or  that  it  may  not  be  called 
upon  to  bear  the  burdens  that  might  rightly 

1  Ross,  Consumers  and  Wage  Earners,  pp.  27,  30.     N.  Y., 
1912. 

'Catholic  Ideals  in  Social  Life,  p.  311.    N.  Y.,  1914. 


[E  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     10 

and  justly  fall  to  its  share?    "The  public 

has   DO    tight    that   he    (the   worker)    should 

labor  in  order  that  it  should  be  convenienced, 

Dor  that  he  should  forego  the  use  of  any  of 
his  just  powers  of  securing  favorable  terms 
from  the  capitalist  in  order  that  its  interests 
should  not  suffer.  We  hear  a  great  deal 
about  the  suffering  which  strikes  indict  on 
the  innocent  public,  but  we  must  remember 
that  the  public  has  no  right  to  demand  that 
the  workmen  abstain  from  the  acts  to  which 
these  sufferings  are  attributed.  If  these 
sufferings  resulted  merely  from  the  spon- 
taneous and  simultaneous  cessation  from 
work  on  the  part  of  a  large  section  of  work- 
ers .  .  .  there  should  be  no  shadow  of  foun- 
dation for  the  charge  of  injustice  against 
these  men.  Neither  can  these  sufferings 
prove  injustice  when  they  are  due  to  a  course 
which  the  men  are  otherwise  perfectly  jus- 
tified in  pursuing."  !  The  public  has  no 
more  right  than  the  immediate  employers  to 
demand  that  the  laborers  work  for  unjust 
wages,  no  more  than  they  have  a  right  to  de- 
mand that  the  laborers  refrain  from  striking, 

if  that    lie  necessary,  to  enforce  (heir  claim, 
provided  the  demand  in  itself  be  a  just  and 
1  KaUcher,  op.  cit,  pp,  n-i.-1. 


44     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

reasonable  one,  and  that  the  means  em- 
ployed in  carrying  on  the  strike  be  moral 
in  themselves. 

Here  it  is  presupposed  that  the  demands 
to  be  enforced  are  of  such  a  grave  character 
that  the  good  to  be  obtained  will  offset  any 
injuries  that  the  general  public  may  be 
called  upon  to  endure  in  consequence  of  the 
strike,  and  that  no  other  less  drastic  method 
for  the  enforcement  of  the  claims  is  avail- 
able. The  bearing  which  each  of  these  con- 
ditions has  on  the  morality  of  the  strike  will 
be  shown  further  on  in  the  development  of 
the  subject. 

The  third  element  in  the  constitution  of  a 
strike — the  enforcing  of  certain  demands — 
is  by  its  very  nature  morally  indifferent. 
Whether  such  demands  are  moral  or  not, 
licit  or  illicit,  will  depend  on  the  nature  of 
the  demands  enforced  by  any  particular 
strike.  They  may  be  morally  good  or  evil, 
just  or  unjust.  How  the  character  of  the 
demands  may  affect  the  morality  of  a  strike 
we  shall  now  proceed  to  set  forth. 


Ill 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

IN    ITS    RELATION    TO    THE 

END  OR  OBJECT  SOUGHT 

1.      JUST  AND  UNJUST  CAUSES 

IN  justifying  or  condemning  any  par- 
ticular strike,  the  object  or  end  aimed 
at  or  desired  by  the  strikers  must  be 
given  primary  consideration.  For  unless 
the  object  of  the  strike  be  morally  good  and 
one  to  which  the  laborers  have  some  right  in 
justice,  they  cannot  be  justified  either  in 
demanding  that  their  claims  be  granted  or 
in  enforcing  them  by  any  means  whatever, 

DO  matter  how  harmless.  The  laborers  haw- 
no  right  to  "all  that  they  can  get"  it'  that 
term  is  to  be  taken  to  mean,  as  it  generally 
is  by  the  worker,  that  justice  sets  no  limits 
to  what  he  may  demand  or  take,   provided 

he  can  enforce  such  demands. 

The    theory    advanced    by    socialists    that 
45 


46    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

"the  laborer  has  a  right  to  the  whole  prod- 
uct," *  is  not  only  a  "radically  incomplete" 
theory  of  wage  justice,  but  "it  is  confronted 
by  the  final  objection  that  its  realization 
would  involve  greater  evils  and  injustices 
than  those  it  seeks  to  abolish."  2  Socialists 
forget  that  labor  is  but  one  of  the  necessary 
factors  in  production.  Labor  cannot  get 
along  without  capital  any  more  than  capital 
can  dispense  with  labor.  Furthermore,  they 
are  bound  together  not  only  by  mutual  needs 
or  interest,  but  also  by  mutual  obligations. 
The  claim  of  labor  to  "all  that  it  can  get, 
and  this  only  limited  by  what  it  produces," 
as  set  forth  in  the  New  York  Socialist  Call 
is  altogether  unjust  and  such  a  claim  may 
not  be  enforced  by  peaceful,  much  less  by 
drastic,  strike  methods.  Such  a  theory,  in 
the  minds  of  the  radical  workman,  means 
"that  there  is  no  limit  to  what  they  may 
demand  short,  perhaps,  of  killing  the  goose 
that  lays  the  golden  eggs,  though  Socialism 
would  not  hesitate  at  that,"  3  and  is  no  more 
justifiable  than  the  claim  of  the  capitalist  to 

'Win.  Godwin,  Enquiry  Concerning  Political  Justice; 
Wm.  Thompson,  An  Inquiry  into  the  Principles  of  the  Dis- 
tribution  of  Wealth  Most  Conducive  to  Human  Happiness. 

2  Rvan,  Distrib.  Just.,  p.  3-16. 

"Husslein,  The  World  Problem,  p.  113,  New  York,  1918. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     47 

"all  that  he  can  get."  Disregarding  the 
principles  -if  justice,  the  modern  capitalist, 
acting  on  the  same  principle  of  seeking  and 

taking  all  that  he  can  get,  lias  forced  wages 
down  to  the  minimum  of  expediency  or 
necessity,  while  at  the  same  time  he  has 
forced  prices  up  to  the  maximum  of  eco- 
nomic e  tpediency  or  possibility,  and  in  this 
way  "'a  small  number  of  very  rich  men  have 
been  able  to  lay  upon  the  masses  a  yoke 
little  better  than  slavery."  ' 

The  doctrine  of  "laissez  faire"  and  the 
"fret-  u.  :  ■  contract"  are  no  Longer  regarded 
as  pos  tin-  sacredness   formerly   at- 

tributed to  them.    "There  is  in  progress  a 

very  general  reaction  from  this  immoral  doe- 
trine  and  almost  all  men  admit  that  there  i^ 
a  fair  price  and  an  unfair  price  for  labor 
as  well  as  for  other  goods  that  men  buy  and 
sill."  So,  also,  as  then-  is  a  just  wage, 
there  are  conditions  of  labor,  hours,  etc., 
which  ;i  'e  just,  and  which  labor  may  demand 

without  inflicting  an  Injustice  either  on  tin 
employ*  r    r  on  the  general  public. 

The  cause  for  which  men  generally  strike 
may  be  e  ther  to  obtain  better  terms  of  em- 

1  BncycL    On  the  Condition  of  Ijil><>r. 
•  Hy.ui,  DnHrib.  .hi>t.,  p.   108, 


48    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ployment  as  regards  wages,  length  of  work- 
ing days  or  some  other  condition  of  work, 
to  retain  present  advantages  which  the  em- 
ployer seeks  to  curtail,  or  to  obtain  recogni- 
tion of  union  and  union  principles.  Assum- 
ing that  the  end  sought  is  morally  good  in 
itself,  the  action  of  the  men  in  striking  can- 
not be  justifiable  except  on  the  condition 
that  they  have,  as  against  either  the  employ- 
ers or  the  consumers  a  right  to  the  object 
sought.  It  is  clearly  evident  that  no  strike 
is  justifiable  that  seeks  to  enforce  unjust 
demands. 

Of  the  justice  of  the  cause  of  those  who 
strike  for  a  minimum  wage  there  can  be  no 
question.  "The  right  of  Labor  to  a  living 
wage  with  decent  maintenance  for  the  pres- 
ent and  provisions  for  the  future  is  generally 
recognized.  The  right  of  Capital  to  a  fair 
day's  work,  for  a  fair  wage  is  equally 
plain."  x  Such  is  the  teaching  voiced  by 
Pope  Leo  XIII  almost  thirty  years  ago. 
"There  is,"  says  the  Encyclical,  "a  dictate 
of  natural  justice  more  imperious  than  any 
bargain  between  man  and  man,  namely  that 
the   remuneration    should   be   sufficient   to 

1  Pastoral  Letter  of  the  Hierarchy  of  the  United  States, 
February,  1920. 


Till:  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     49 

maintain  the  wage  earner  in  reasonable  and 

frugal  comfort."  '  The  principle  of  a  living 
wage  is  expressly  embodied  in  the  Church 
Law,  Canon  1524  of  the  New  Code  (Codex 
Juris  Canonici),  which  states  that  "All  per- 
sons .  .  .  should,  in  employing  labor,  pay 
the  workers  a  fair  and  just  wage."  This 
duty  of  the  employer  of  labor  is  based  on 
the  fact  that  he  "has  obligations  of  justice 
not  merely  as  a  receiver  of  a  valuable  thing 
through  an  onerous  contract  but  as  the  dis- 
tributor of  the  common  heritage  of  nature. 
His  duty  is  not  merely  contractual  but 
social.  .  .  .  Unless  lie  perforins  this  social 
and  distributive  function  in  accordance  with 
justice  he  does  not  adequately  discharge  his 
obligation  of  the  Wage  Contract. 

A  strike  will  always  be  just  per  $6  which 
seeks  to  raise  a  wage  that  is  less  than  this 
minimum  of  wage  justice  up  to  at  least  the 
minimum.  This  the  employer  cannot  or- 
dinarily refuse  without  violating  justice-.  In 
ease  an  employer  cannot  pay  a  living  wage, 
his  obligation  of  justice  is  suspended,  while 

charity  would  seem  to  urge  that  the  Laborers 
refrain  from  enforcing  their  claims.     They 

1  On  the  Condition  <>f  Labor. 
'Ryan,  Distrik  Jut,   |>.   STL 


50     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

are  not  bound,  however,  to  continue  laboring 
for  such  an  employer,  for  "if  the  industry 
cannot  pay  a  living  wage  the  workmen  will 
be  justified  in  leaving  such  an  industry  to 
die  out."  x 

Fr.  Lehmkuhl  in  discussing  the  question 
of  the  just  causes  of  strikes,  distinguishes 
between  what  he  calls  self-defense  (not- 
wehr)  and  self-help  (selDsthilfe).  "Self- 
defense,"  he  says,  "is  always  self-help  but 
not  vice  versa";  the  concept  of  "self-help" 
is  wider.  It  does  not  of  necessity  suppose 
that  strict  injustice  has  been  committed  by 
the  other  party,  but  extends  to  the  effective 
maintenance  of  whatever  the  workers  may 
demand  and  strive  for,  without  committing 
an  injustice  themselves.  "To  enable  one  to 
decide  whether,  in  a  particular  case,  a  strike 
is  justified  or  not,  it  is  of  great  importance 
to  know  whether  it  has  or  has  not  this  char- 
acter of  self-defense.  .  .  .  Workers  are 
never  bound  to  continue  for  a  single  day  to 
work  under  unjust  conditions,  even  though 
these  should  be  part  of  the  contract  which  in 
this  respect  would  have  no  binding  force. 
.  .  .  Should  the  employers,  however,  be 
guilty  of  no  act  of  injustice  against  the  em- 

1  Lehmkuhl,  Arbeitersvertrag  und  Strike,  p.  57. 


Till:  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     51 

ployed,  the  latter  must  observe  the  condi- 
tions of  any  just  contract  they  may  have 
entered  into  until  this  expires.  They  may, 
indeed,  ask  for  more  favorable  conditions, 

but  they  may  not  enforce  the  demand.  Pro- 
vided, however,  they  have  given  the  notice 
prescribed  in  the  contract,  or,  at  the  expira- 
tion of  the  term  agreed  upon,  the  workmen 
can  take  combined  action  to  enforce  a  much 
more  extensive  claim;  they  have  a  right  to 
set  a  higher  value  on  their  labor;  and  even 
though  these  further  demands  be  unwise 
.  .  .  they  cannot  on  that  account  alone  be 
accused  of  strict  injustice." '  While  the 
quotation  is,  in  general,  a  correct  statement 
of  the  case,  yet  the  claim  that  the  laborers 
"have  a  right  to  set  a  higher  value  on  their 
labor,  etc.,"  necessarily  calls  for  some  re- 
strictive qualification.  The  laborers  have  a 
right  to  set  a  higher  value  on  their  labor  and 
demand  such  higher  wage,  provided  such  de- 
mands are  not  unjust,  that  is,  do  not  exceed 
what  they  may  demand  in  justice.  Father 
Vermeersch's  statement   would  be  a  more 

exact  presentation  Of  the  ease  when  he  states 
that  "strikes,  which  arc  called  for  the   pur- 
pose of  enforcing  a  higher  wage,  as  long  as 
1  Arbettenvertrag  and  strike,  pp,  66,  '><<,  B9, 


52     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

it  is  just,  even  though  it  be  the  'summum 
justum'  or  the  maximum  just  wage,  are  not 
to  be  adjudged  on  this  account  unjust."  1 
So  if  the  wages  are  below  that  which  justice 
requires  the  employer  to  pay  his  workmen, 
that  is,  if  they  are  below  the  minimum  of 
wage  justice,  which  employers  may  not 
withhold  without  committing  an  injustice, 
the  workers  are  justified  in  demanding  a 
higher  wage,  even  though  a  contract  should 
exist,  and  in  striking  to  enforce  such  a  de- 
mand if  this  be  necessary.  Such  action  will 
constitute  an  act  of  self-defense  against  real 
injustice  inflicted  on  them  by  their  em- 
ployer. But  not  only  may  they  strike 
against  treatment  which  constitutes  a  real 
injustice,  but  they  may  also  demand  the 
"summum  justum"  wage,  and  if  no  valid 
contract  exists,  they  may,  without  violating 
strict  justice,  strike  to  enforce  a  wage,  even 
in  excess  of  a  living  wage,  provided  such 
wage  demanded  be  not  in  excess  of  the 
"summum  justum"  wage.  "If,  however,  the 
demands  of  the  strikers  call  for  a  wage  which 
is  beyond  the  'summum  justum'  or  for  un- 
reasonable conditions  of  labor,  the   strike 

1  Quaest.  de  Just.,  n.  473,  b. 


THE  MORALITY  OP  THE  STRIKE    68 

will  involve  a  Violation  of  strict  justice."1 

A  demand  for  a  wage  in  excess  of  the 

maximum  just  price  or  the  highest  just  wage 

which  one's  laboi  is  entitled  to,  would  he  to 
demand  more  than  the  commodity  of  lahor 
was  worth  and  SO  a  strike  to  enforce  such 
a  demand  would  he  unjust.  .And  if  through 
a  strike  the  employer  is  compelled  to  grant 
demands  which  force  him  to  commit  an  in- 
justice on  the  consumer  by  charging  more 
than  the  "just  price"  for  the  product  in  or- 
der to  meet  part  of  any  unjust  demand,  then 

the  laborers  are  plainly  guilty  of  a  double 

injustice.  But  "between  the  'pretium  suiu- 
mum'  and  the  'pretium  infimunf  the  work- 
man  may   take  any  wage  he  can,  even  the 

'pretium  summum1  if  he  can  bargain  for  it. 

He  can  refuse  t<>  work  unless  he  gets  it  and 
can  combine  with  Others  for  the  purpose, — 
in  a  word,  he  can  strike  for  it.  as  far  as  jus- 
tice is  concerned."  '  Such  action  might, 
however,  involve  a  violation  of  legal  justice 
or  of  charity. 

In  order  to  he  ahle  to  state  definitely  when 
a  strike  i-^  unjust  by  reason  of  excessive  de- 
mands, it  would  be  accessary  to  know  just 

1  v.  rmeerech,  Qaaest.  <1<-  Just.,  n. 

!  M  ir.-imii.  iri.-ii  TheoL  Quart,  Vol.  I,  p.  U5. 


54     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

what  is  the  "summum  justum"  wage,  condi- 
tions of  labor,  etc.,  in  the  various  employ- 
ments. As  yet  these  have  not  been  definitely 
determined.  The  perpetual  fluctuations  of 
economic  conditions  make  this  determina- 
tion extremely  difficult  or  practically  impos- 
sible. We  may  be  able  to  determine  within 
reasonable  limits  what  is  the  "infimum  jus- 
tum" or  the  minimum  of  wage  justice,  and 
at  times  it  may  be  quite  evident  that  a  par- 
ticular wage  demand  is  excessively  unjust, 
but  we  cannot  as  yet  point  out  definitely  at 
what  particular  point  injustice  begins.  We 
may  be  sure,  however,  that  it  is  not  "all  that 
he  can  get"  or  100%  of  the  product,  as  the 
syndicalists  would  have  it.  According  to 
the  opinion  of  Dr.  O'Donnell:  "Perhaps 
if  we  said  that  the  maximum  wage  meant  all 
the  profits  remaining  when  the  employer 
has  been  paid  a  full  interest  on  the  value  of 
the  capital  involved  and  a  full  remuneration 
for  individual  service  in  the  way  of  manage- 
ment and  otherwise,  we  should  be  as  near 
the  truth  as  any  others  that  have  speculated 
with  the  problem.  If  the  test  is  true  it 
would  employ  a  large  margin  of  difference 
between  the  minimum  and  the  maximum 
wage  in  the  large  and  settled  industries  that 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIK1 

transform  capitalists  into  millionaires  and  a 
yery  Blight  one,  it'  any  at  all,  in  the  smaller 
branches,  where  the-  risks  of  capital  are 
#rcat,  and  the  profit  meagre  and  fluctu- 
ating."1 Until  We  ran  say  what  arc  the 
and  what  arc  the  conditions  of  em- 
ployment which  each  workman  would  be  un- 
just in  seeking  we  cannot  determine  just 
when  strikes  would  be  unjust  by  reason  of 
the  greatness  of  the  demands. 

When  during  the  summer  of   1919  the 

dock  hands  in  New  Fork  struck  for  a  wage 
of  one  dollar  an  hour,  it  was  thought  by 
many,  and  this  opinion  was  fostered  by  the 
hitter  criticism  such  demands  w  err  subjected 
to  by  the  daily  press,  that  their  wage  de- 
mands  were   surely   unjust.      Yet    a   careful 

consideration  of  the  case  "would  make  an 
intelligent  moralist  reluctant  to  declare  that 
the   laborer  who  demands  and   receives  a 

Wage  of  oik  dollar  an  hour,  is  clearly  guilty 
of  injustice.*1  ■  Still  it  would  not  he  correct 
to  state  that  the  strike  did  not  involve  a  vio- 
lation of  justice.  ( )ther  factors  call  for  seri- 
ous consideration   before  rendering  a  de- 

;,  Record,  191 1  -IS,  ; 

•Cat'h.  llur    K.-t,    BdltorUl,  Oct..   1919,  p.  «8.     WuL, 

D   l 


56    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

cision,  such  as  their  violation  of  contract,  and 
their  disregard  of  the  orders  of  the  supreme 
officers  of  their  union.  These  factors  would 
seem  to  justify  at  least  one  prominent  mor- 
alist *  in  condemning  the  strike  as  "not 
morally  justifiable." 

Although  it  happens  occasionally  that 
strikes  are  called  which  involve  a  violation 
of  justice,  still  it  may  safely  be  stated  that 
the  cause  for  which  labor  is  striking  and 
seeking  to  secure,  viz.,  the  remedying  of  the 
evils  and  injustices  of  the  present  social  and 
economic  condition,  is  in  general  a  just  one. 
This  contention  is  admitted  by  most  of  the 
present-day  economic  and  moral  writers. 
"The  organized  struggle  of  the  laboring 
classes,"  says  John  Graham  Brooks  in  his 
work,  The  Social  Unrest,  "assumes  that  the 
present  competitive  wage  system  does  not 
bring  full  justice  to  labor."  2  And  he  adds 
that  "our  society  is  full  of  extremely  influ- 
ential persons  who  say  point  blank  that 
labor's  protest  is  in  the  main  a  righteous  one 
and  should  prevail."  To  support  his  con- 
tention he  quotes  the  statements  of  a  large 
number  of  "influential  persons,"  beginning 

xOp.  cit.,  Nov.,  1919,  p.  228. 
3  P.  154. 


THE  IfORALITI  01   THE  STRIKE     57 

with  Wagner  and  (.•ruling  with  Pope  Leo 
XIII. 

The  great  demand  that  is  at  the  bear!  of 
the  struggle  of  honest  labor  is  thai  justice 
should  prevail  in  the  distribution  of  the 
goods  of  the  earth,  that  the  common  wel- 
fare rather  than  the  welfare  of  a  privflegi  'I 
f<  m  should  be  consulted  in  this  and  in  all 
tilings.  Ft.  Plater  terms  this  effort  to  estab- 
lish the  reign  of  justice  in  the  industrial  field 
"suppressed  Catholicism."1  In  his  mind 
"the  working  class  of  this  country  are  suffer- 
ing from  suppressed  Catholicism.  The  <>Id 
pre-Reformation  instincts  for  freedom  and 
security  have  broken  the  husk  of  an  un- 
christian economic  theory  and  practice."  It 
is  a  revolt  against  the  selfish  spirit  of 
rationalistic  capitalism  that  sprang  into  be- 
after  the  Reformation,  when  the  Guild 
in  was  replaced  by  a  "system  which  per- 
mitted the  accumulation  of  mountain 
fortunes  by  a  few  clevei  and  often  highly 
unscrupulous  financiers  who  h<  Id  in  their 

hands  the  fate  of  millions  of  their  fellow- 
men."  -  It  is  the  spirit  of  justice,  the  spirit 
of  "suppressed  Catholicism,*1  that  is  at  the 

1  Tin-  Pried  in  So     I  Ad  New  York.  1014 

Mlu..  1.  in.  The  World  Probfc  m,  p,  l. 


58     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

heart  of  the  labor  movement,  "struggling  for 
liberation  beneath  the  crackling,  breaking, 
bursting  shell  of  an  unnatural  and  un- Chris- 
tian social  order."  x  The  "general  convic- 
tion" underlying  the  great  social  struggle, 
"that  the  present  competitive  wage  system 
does  not  bring  justice  to  labor  and  that 
labor's  protest  is  in  the  main  a  righteous  one 
and  should  prevail  ...  is  undoubtedly  cor- 
rect." 2  For  the  most  part  this  sense  of  in- 
justice manifests  itself  in  the  low  rumblings 
of  discontent,  the  constant  shiftlessness 
manifested  in  the  industrial  field — and  at 
times  the  spirit  of  justice,  which,  like  the 
ghost  of  Banquo,  "will  not  down,"  rises  and 
asserts  itself  in  the  form  of  a  strike.  "The 
strike  may  foment  class  hatred  on  the  part 
of  the  employers ;  but  primarily  it  expresses 
a  sense  of  injustice  on  the  part  of  the  em- 
ployed, which  is  present  whether  the  strike 
breaks  out  or  not."  3  The  magnitude  of  the 
injustice  done  to  labor,  by  forcing  between 
two-thirds  and  three-fourths  of  the  great 
body  of  the  working  public  to  accept  a  wage 

*Op.  cit.,  p.  5. 

aRyan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  103. 
'  Parkinson,  A  Primer  of  Social  Science,  p.  131.     N.  Y., 
1913. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    59 

below  the  level  of  minimum  justice,1  be- 
comes somewhat  evident  when  we  consider 

that  "shortly  before  the  Great  War  i  ■  of 
tin-  population  of  England  held  90  of  all 
the  wealth  of  the  country.     In  the  United 

States  60       Of  the  wealth  was  owned  by  2 

of  the  people,  while  at  the  other  extreme  of 

the  social  scale,  65'  of  the  population,  rep- 
uting the  labor  element,  possessed  no 
more  than  .V.  of  tlu-  total  riches  of  the 
laud."  '  The  Constant  friction  in  the  indus- 
trial world,  the  angry  pressure  of  organized 

labor,  the  revolt  of  the  strike,  stand  for  a 
protest  against  the  injustice.'  done  to  the 
laboring  class.  According  to  the  Manley 
report,  before  the  war,  between  two-thirds 
and  three-fourths  of  the  adult  male  laborers 
of  the  United  States  received  a  wage  less 

than  $750.00  a  year,'  a  sum  which  certainly 
could  nut  he  considered  as  an  excessive  liv- 
ing wage.  As  the  increase  in  wages  in  gen- 
era] has  not  kept  pace  with  the  increased  cosi 

of  living,  it  is  quite  safe  to  say  that  the  posi- 
tion  of  the  laborer  in   relation  to  the  mini- 


'Cf    N'.irin.'.  Income,  p,   |06{  Grant,  Pair  Play  t.>  the 
Workers,  p 
•  Husslein,  The  World  Problem.  ; 
upMiks,  Social  (Jurat,  p.  164 
•Cf.  Ryan,  DUtrib.  Just,  p. 


60     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

mum  wage  or  minimum  cost  of  living,  has 
not  materially  improved.  So  it  is  hardly  an 
exaggeration  to  say  that  at  the  present  day 
"a  considerable  majority  of  both  male  and 
female  laborers  fail  to  obtain  living  wages. 
We  are  still  very  far  from  having  actualized 
even  the  minimum  of  wage  justice."  1 

In  view  of  these  facts  we  may  reasonably 
conclude  that  the  "considerable  majority"  of 
the  workers  of  the  United  States  would  cer- 
tainly be  justified  in  striking  for  a  salary 
which  would  be  equivalent  to  the  concrete 
estimate  of  the  ethical  minimum  as  com- 
puted by  reputable  economists.  Of  the  jus- 
tice of  such  a  cause  there  can  be  no  question. 
Nor  are  the  laborers  limited  to  the  minimum, 
although  it  is  up  to  the  minimum  that  the 
action  of  the  strikers  may  be  considered  as 
an  act  of  self-defense  against  the  injustice 
of  their  employers.  But  besides  this  they 
may  lawfully  demand,  and  strike  for  a  wage 
up  to  the  maximum  value  of  their  labor,  at 
least  as  far  as  the  strict  justice  of  the  case  is 
concerned,  although  their  action  might  be 
contrary  to  legal  justice  or  to  charity  in  a 
particular  case. 

A  question  of  considerable  importance  in 

1  Ryan,  op.  cit,  p.  380. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     81 

determining  the  morality  of  a  strike  to  en- 
force a  •!  dm  for  an  increase  of  wage  is 
whether  or  not  the  minimum  or  Living  r 
means  a  family  wage.  For  it'  the  minimum 
wage  means  a  family  wage,  then  the  workers 
without  violating  justice  can.  even  where  a 
contract  exists,  strike  for  the  enforcement 

of  such  a  wage.     On  the  other  ham!,  if  the 

living  wage  means  only  an  individual  wage, 

tlie  content  of  such  a  wage  being  much  less, 
to  strike  for  a  family  wage,  where  a  contract 
exists  to  work  for  a  lesser  wage,  if  above  the 
minimum,  woirld  constitute  ;i  violation  of 
natural  justice  and  render  the  strike  unjust. 

The  more  gi  neral  opinion  of  theologians  and 

economists   is   that,   "the   claim   to   a    family 

wage  is  one  of  strict  justice,  while  the 
minority  would  put  it  under  the  head  of  legal 

justice    or    natural    equity   or   charity.     The 

ditl'<  bet  w(  en  their  \  icw  s  are  Dot  so 

important  as  the  agreements,  for  all  Catholic 

Writers  maintain  that  the  worker's  claim  is 
strictly  moral  in  its  nature  and  the  corre- 
sponding   ibligation  upon  the  employer  is 

The  statement  of  Cathrein  would  seem  to 

1  Kvmii.    :  I  l.i.t.,    pp,    177-78       Cf.    H\  tn.    A    I.ninj; 

i  i 


62     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

make  the  payment  of  a  family  wage  not  a 
matter  of  strict  justice.  "To  effect  any  dis- 
crimination," he  writes,  "in  favor  of  unmar- 
ried men,  which  might  arise  were  the  living 
wage  due  to  them  less  than  that  which  mar- 
ried men  should  receive,  an  amount  equiva- 
lent to  a  family  wage  is  considered  the 
minimum  for  all  adult  males."  *  While  it 
is  clear  that  there  can  be  no  question  of  the 
moral  obligation  of  the  employer  to  pay  a 
family  living  wage,  and  while  it  matters 
little  on  what  virtue  or  species  of  justice  such 
obligation  is  based  as  far  as  the  employer's 
duty  is  concerned,  still  it  is  of  considerable 
consequence  when  viewed  in  relation  to 
strikes  and  the  possible  violation  of  con- 
tracts. However,  as  most  moralists  are 
agreed  that  a  living  wage  means  a  family 
wage,  laborers  may,  without  a  violation  of 
justice,  strike  for  such  a  wage  even  where  a 
contract  to  work  for  a  lower  wage  exists. 
On  the  other  hand,  as  some  authorities  are 
of  the  other  opinion,  we  cannot  say  with  cer- 
tainty that  an  employer,  who  fails  to  pay  a 
family  wage,  yet  pays  to  all  his  employees 
an  individual  living  wage,  is  guilty  of  a  vio- 
lation of  commutative  justice. 

1  Phil.  Moral.,  n.  413. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     6S 

To  the  further  question,  just  what  is  the 
money  equivalent  of  such  a  living  wage,  it  is 
not  easy  to  give  an  exact  answer.  It  must 
necessarily  fluctuate  with  the  changes  in  the 
cost  of  living.  While  in  1906  "anything  less 
than  $600.00  per  year  would  not  be  consid- 
ered a  living  wage  in  any  of  the  cities  of  the 
United  States"1  and  about  $840.00  was 
necessary,  according  to  the  Bureau  of  Stand- 
ards, for  a  family  of  five  in  New  York  in 
1915,  such  estimates  are  certainly  far  from 
constituting  a  living  wage  at  the  present  day 
when  "the  cost  of  living  has  increased  83.1% 
during  the  past  six  years." 2  With  the 
present  very  unsettled  state  of  the  markets, 
it  is  very  nearly  impossible  to  give  anything 
like  an  accurate  estimate.  The  divergence 
of  the  estimates  given  by  authorities  clearly 
shows  this.  According  to  the  United  States 
Bureau  of  Labor  Statistics,  "a  family  of  five 
needs  $2,288.25"  according  to  prices  preva- 
lent in  October,  1919,  "to  live  in  decent  com- 
fort in  Washington,  D.  C."  3  This  "budget 
level  adopted,"  the  Review  adds,  "is  in  no 
way  intended  as  an  ideal  budget.     It  was 

1  Ryan,  A  Living  Wage,  p.  150. 

'Monthly   Labor    Review,    U.    S.    Dept.   of   Labor,   Jan., 
1920,  p.  98. 
"Ibid.,  Dec.,  1919,  p.  23. 


64     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

intended  to  establish  a  bottom  level  of  health 
and  decency,  below  which  a  family  cannot  go 
without  danger  of  physical  health  and  moral 
deterioration."  In  1918  Professor  William 
F.  Ogburn,  Examiner  for  the  National  War 
Labor  Board,  estimated  the  minimum  cost 
of  decent  subsistence  for  this  country  as 
$1,386. 00. *  Making  the  necessary  allow- 
ance for  the  increase  in  cost  of  living  since 
that  date  would  bring  this  estimate  up  to 
about  $1,550.00  or  $1,600.00  for  the  begin- 
ning of  the  present  year.  According  to  Dr. 
Ryan,  "the  minimum  cost  of  decent  living 
for  a  man  and  wife  and  three  children  in  the 
United  States  today  (October,  1919)  varies 
from  $1,400.00  to  $1,500.00."  2 

This  last  figure  is  considerably  lower  than 
the  estimate  of  most  economists.  According 
to  the  findings  of  the  investigations  con- 
ducted by  the  Bureau  of  Municipal  Re- 
search of  Philadelphia,  a  family  of  five  "can- 
not maintain  a  fair  standard  of  living  at 
current  prices  (autumn,  1918)  on  less  than 
$1,636.79  a  year."  3 

1  Memorandum  printed  for  the  use  of  the  National  War 
Labor  Board,  p.  13. 

2  A  Living  Wage,  p.  107,  1920  Edition. 

3  Beyer,  Davis,  and   Thwing,  Workingruen's   Standard  in 
Philadelphia,  p.  5. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     65 

The  National  War  Labor  Board  in  June, 
1918,  estimated  that  the  cost  of  a  "minimum 
of  comfort"  budget  for  a  family  of  five  in 
the  five  larger  eastern  cities  was  $1,760.00 
per  year.1  Allowing  for  the  increase  in  cost 
of  living  since  1918  would  bring  both  of 
these  figures  up  to  the  vicinity  of  $1,900.00 
and  $2,000.00  at  the  beginning  of  1920. 

Professor  Ogburn  of  the  University  of 
Columbia,  "who  was  requested  by  the  United 
Mine  Workers  of  America  to  prepare  an 
annual  budget  of  expense  for  the  average 
American  family  of  five  persons,  shows  that 
the  average  family  required  $2,243.94  a  year 
for  support  on  an  American  standard  of 
reasonable  health  and  comfort."  2 

The  minimum  cost  of  a  living  budget  for 
a  family  of  five  given  by  the  Canadian  Civil 
Service  Report,  a  "budget  based  on  a  study 
of  prices  made  by  the  departments  of  Labor 
of  Canada  and  the  LTnited  States,  and  by  the 
United  States  Shipping  Board,  the  New 
York  Factory  Investigating  Commission, 
the  New  York  Bureau  of  Standards,  the 
Massachusetts    and    Minnesota    Minimum 

*Cf.  op.  cit.,  p.  7. 

2  Bittner,  Van.  H.,  Miners'  Union  Statistician's  statement 
before  the  President's  Cost  Commission,  Wash.  Star,  Jan. 
29,  1920. 


66     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

Wage  Commission  and  other  bodies,"  places 
"the  necessary  annual  expenditures  for  a 
man  and  wife  and  three  children  at 
$1,558.00."  1  As  the  average  cost  of  living 
in  Canada  is  somewhat  less  than  in  this  coun- 
try, it  seems  to  be  quite  safe  to  say  that  a 
general  estimate  of  $1,000.00  as  the  mini- 
mum family  wage  is  quite  conservative  for 
at  least  the  great  majority  of  cities  in  the 
United  States. 

a.     Working  Conditions 

Another  frequent  cause  of  industrial  con- 
flicts has  been  the  question  of  working  con- 
ditions. Laborers  have  demanded,  and 
rightly  so,  that  they  not  only  be  given  an 
adequate  wage,  but  that  they  be  not  forced 
to  earn  that  wage  under  conditions  which 
might  imperil  their  health,  life,  or  morals. 
Whether  such  demands  are  just  will  depend 
upon  the  reasonableness  of  improvements 
demanded.  There  is  no  definite  standard 
available  to  determine  precisely  at  what 
point  such  demands  would  be  unreasonable. 
One  thing  would  seem  certain — workers 
may,   in  some   employments,   still   demand 

1  The  Canadian  Labor  Gazette,  August,  1919,  p.  862. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     67 

further  improvements  in  the  conditions  of 
labor  without  violating  justice.  Adequate 
protection  against  moral  evils  as  well  as 
against  accidents  and  disease  may  always  be 
demanded  where  they  are  not  enforced  by 
law.  Both  justice  and  charity  require  that 
employers  concede  this  much  at  least.  This 
phase  of  the  industrial  question  of  late  years 
has  received  more  attention  that  any  other 
on  the  part  of  the  state  legislators,  with  the 
result  that  many  protective  laws  have  been 
enacted  safeguarding  the  health  and  lives  of 
the  workers.  This  fortunately  lessens  the 
necessity  of  resorting  to  strikes  to  enforce 
reasonable  working  conditions,  and  in  time, 
the  need  of  resorting  to  these  measures  in 
this  regard  will  no  longer  be  felt. 

b.     Hours  of  Labor 

A  demand  for  reasonable  hours  of  labor 
may  form  a  just  cause  for  a  strike.  "Daily 
labor,"  says  Pope  Leo  XIII,  "must  be  so 
regulated  that  it  may  not  be  protracted  dur- 
ing longer  hours  than  the  strength  admits. 
How  many  and  how  long  the  intervals  of 
rest  should  be,  will  depend  upon  the  nature 
of  the  work,  on  the  circumstances  of  time 


68     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

and  place,  and  on  the  health  and  strength 
of  the  workmen.  Those  who  labor  in  mines 
and  quarries  should  have  shorter  hours  in 
proportion  as  their  labor  is  more  severe  and 
trying  to  their  health."  1 

What  precisely  constitutes  a  reasonable 
length  of  hours  for  a  working  day?  As  the 
Encyclical  points  out,  that  will  depend  on 
several  factors  connected  with  the  particular 
types  of  labor.  "Eight  hours  would  seem 
to  be  a  fair  average  for  most  occupations, 
and  sentiment  in  this  country  is  crystallizing 
around  that  amount."  2  The  statement  of 
Fr.  Noldin  that  "an  eight-hour  day  cannot 
be  denied  by  the  employer  without  injus- 
tice" 3  would  seem  to  demand  some  limita- 
tions. While  the  contention  that  eight  hours 
is  the  maximum  that  employers  can  require 
in  justice  at  indoor,  irksome  work  of  regular 
demand,  would  seem  reasonable,4  still  it 
would  be  very  difficult  to  prove  that,  for 
labor  of  less  disagreeable  type,  a  somewhat 
longer  daily  period  would  be  unquestionably 
excessive  and  unjust. 

1  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 

8  J.  E.  Ross,  C.  S.  P.  Christian  Ethics,  p.  346.  New 
York,  1919.  Cf.  Florence  Kelly,  Some  Ethical  Gains 
Through  Legislation. 

s  Theol.  Mor.,  Vol.  II,  n.  307-2b. 

4Cf.  Nearing,  Social  Adjustment,  pp.  181,  seq. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     69 

Would  a  demand  for  a  shorter  hour  day 
be  an  unjust  demand?  The  demand  for  a 
six -hour  day  is  no  longer  merely  a  theoreti- 
cal problem.  At  the  annual  convention  of 
Labor  held  in  Atlantic  City  in  the  summer 
of  1919  the  question  of  adopting  a  six-hour 
day  was  considered  seriously  by  the  major- 
ity of  the  delegates.  One  of  the  demands  of 
the  bituminous  coal  miners'  strike  was  "a 
six-hour  day  and  a  five-day  week."  A  similar 
demand  "was  formulated  by  the  anthracite 
miners  at  their  annual  convention  at  Wilkes- 
Barre  in  August,  1919,  and  ratified  by 
the  national  convention  of  the  United  Mine 
Workers  of  America  in  Cleveland  in  Sep- 
tember." This  demand,  with  others  relating 
to  wages,  "will  be  presented  to  the  anthra- 
cite coal  operators  on  March  9,  1920,  by  the 
union  representatives  of  the  hard  coal  dig- 
gers." * 

Without  attempting  to  decide  definitely 
as  to  the  justice  or  injustice  of  such  a  de- 
mand, it  may  be  stated  that  a  general  de- 
mand for  a  six-hour  day  throughout  the 
industrial  field  would  seem  to  be  altogether 
unreasonable,  for  "it  would  seem  that  the 

1  Washington  Post,  March  1,  1920,  p.  1,  col.  6. 


70     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

eight-hour  clay  is  not  too  long  from  the  view- 
point of  health  and  morals."  1  On  the  other 
hand  if  such  a  curtailing  of  the  hours  of  labor 
were  effected  in  any  very  considerable  por- 
tion of  the  industrial  field  "the  diminished 
production  resulting  therefrom  would  cause 
more  hardships  to  the  weaker  sections  of  the 
laboring  population  than  any  other  class  in 
the  community.  The  products  of  all  the 
short-day  and  short-week  industries  would 
rise  considerably  in  price,  thereby  injuring 
all  persons  who  were  too  weak  economically 
to  obtain  an  increase  in  remuneration."  2 

It  is  possible,  however,  that  peculiar  con- 
ditions of  labor,  excessive  hardship,  or  the 
disagreeable  or  hazardous  character  of  cer- 
tain employments,  might  justify  a  consider- 
able reduction  in  the  length  of  the  working 
day,  so  that  in  a  particular  employment  even 
a  demand  for  a  six-hour  day  would  be  just. 
Whether  such  a  demand  would  be  justified 
in  the  case  of  the  anthracite  and  bituminous 
coal  miners,  in  view  of  the  present  uncer- 
tainty as  to  what  constitutes  an  unjust  de- 
mand in  the  less   arduous   and  hazardous 


1  Editorial  Cath.  Char.  Rev.,  Oct.,  1919,  p.  230. 
s  Op.  cit.,  p.  263. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     71 

employments,  cannot  be  definitely  stated. 
One  thing  is  certain,  however,  as  pointed  out 
above  by  Pope  Leo  XIII:  "Those  who 
labor  in  mines  and  quarries  should  have 
shorter  hours  in  proportion  as  their  labor  is 
more  severe  and  trying  to  health."  Now  if 
a  demand  for  an  eight-hour  day  is  a  reason- 
able one  for  factories,  workshops,  etc.,  as 
most  moralists  and  economists  who  treat  of 
this  question  state,  then  it  can  hardly  be  said 
that  the  coal  miners  who  demand  a  consid- 
erably shorter  work-day  are  unreasonable. 
However,  outside  of  these  exceptional  cases, 
it  would  seem  that  any  considerable  reduc- 
tion beyond  the  eight-hour  day  would  be  un- 
reasonable as  it  would  be  likely  to  reduce 
the  volume  of  production  in  the  various  in- 
dustries to  a  really  harmful  extent.  At 
present,  what  is  needed  is  greater  produc- 
tion, consequently,  until  our  productive 
resources  and  means  of  production  have 
been  quite  considerably  increased,  any  re- 
duction of  the  eight-hour  day  would  seem  to 
work  an  unreasonable  hardship  upon  the 
masses  of  the  people,  and  so  ordinarily  such 
a  claim  could  not  constitute  alone  a  just 
cause  for  a  strike. 


72     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 


c.     Union  Recognition 

Of  late  years  there  has  been  a  growing 
demand  for  union  recognition  and  many 
strikes  have  been  called  to  enforce  this  de- 
mand. Whether  the  claim  for  recognition 
of  a  particular  union  or  union  principles 
will  constitute  a  just  cause  for  a  strike  or 
not  will  depend  on  the  character  of  the  union 
and  the  nature  of  the  principles  advocated, 
as  well  as  the  relation  of  such  principles  to 
the  other  causes  which  may  legitimately  be 
enforced  by  the  laborers.  Unions  are  only 
means  to  an  end.  If  the  aim  of  a  particu- 
lar union  such  as  the  Industrial  Workers 
of  the  World  1  is  morally  unjustifiable,  then 
no  strike  may  be  justly  called  which  has  as 
its  chief  aim  the  recognition  of  such  a  union. 
But  with  the  exception  of  a  few  such  unions, 
"the  chief  aim  of  the  unions  is  morally  jus- 
tified." 2  So  it  may  be  stated  that,  in  gen- 
eral, the  demand  for  union  recognition  is  a 
just  one,  being  one  which  is  vitally  con- 
nected with  the  welfare  of  the  working  class, 

1  Cf .  P.  F.  Bressenden,  The  I.  W.  W.,  A  Study  of  Ameri- 
can Syndicalism. 

2  Cf.  Cath.  Ency.,  Vol.  VIII,  Art.  Moral  Aspects  of  Labor 
Unions,  p.  724. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     73 

for  "it  is  only  as  a  large  united  organization 
that  the  workers  can  secure  their  demands 
as  to  hours  of  labor,  etc."  *  In  his  Encycli- 
cal, Pope  Leo  XIII  recommends  the 
"Workingmen's  Unions"  as  an  instrument 
to  "safeguard  the  interests  of  the  wage- 
earners"  and  in  this  endorsement  he  neces- 
sarily includes  its  vital  principles— the  right 
to  bargain  collectively,  for,  as  John  Mitchell 
points  out,  "the  fundamental  reason  for  the 
existence  of  the  trade  union  is  that  by  it  and 
through  it  workmen  may  be  enabled  to  deal 
collectively  with  their  employers."  2 

The  recognition  of  labor  unions  and  the 
principles  of  collective  bargaining  furnishes, 
therefore,  a  cause  which  may  justly  be  advo- 
cated by  the  laborers.  In  order  that  labor 
may  realize  its  just  aims  "the  labor  union  is 
not  only  justified  but  indispensable." 3 
Laborers  may,  therefore,  lawfully  demand 
that  their  employer  recognize  these  prin- 
ciples, for  it  may  happen  that  the  enforce- 
ment of  the  more  vital  principles  of  union- 
ism such  as  "collective  bargaining,"  etc.,  is 
the  only  means  by  which  the  workmen  can 

1  Cathrein,  Moral  Phil.,  Vol.  II,  p.  628. 

2  Organized  Labor,  p.  4. 

3  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  103. 


74     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

safeguard  themselves  against  grave  injus- 
tice on  the  part  of  the  employer.  So  inti- 
mate a  connection  has  the  recognition  of  the 
main  principles  of  unionism  to  the  welfare 
of  both  the  laboring  classes  and  the  general 
public  that,  according  to  Fr.  Pesch,  "the 
hope  of  industry  for  peace  rests  in  the  col- 
lective bargaining  between  the  entrepreneur 
and  the  worker."  ' 

But  even  though  labor's  struggle  is  in  the 
main  a  righteous  one,  it  does  not  follow  that 
each  and  every  particular  end  advocated  by 
labor  and  enforced  by  strikes  has  always 
been  just.  The  intermingling  of  false  prin- 
ciples and  false  philosophies  with  the  prin- 
ciples and  philosophy  of  Christianity,  which 
stands  for  the  observance  of  law  and  order 
and  the  meting  out  of  justice  to  all,  has  at 
times  led  the  workingmen  astray  from  the 
true  course  along  which  justice  and  the  com- 
mon welfare  of  society  alone  are  to  be  found. 
The  revolt  of  radical  socialists  against  all 
constituted  authority  as  well  as  the  agitation 
for  the  violent  abolition  of  the  institution  of 
private  ownership  of  property,  are  evidences 
of  this.  The  Soviets  would  "discard  the 
parliamentary  processes  established  by  our 

1  Stimmen  aus  Maria  Laach,  1907,  Vol.  72,  p.  130. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     75 

government"  and  adopt  the  general  strike  as 
a  means  "for  overthrowing  the  Government 
of  the  United  States."  "Strikes  are  to  be 
broadened  and  deepened,  making  them  gen- 
eral and  militant,  and  efforts  made  to  de- 
velop their  revolutionary  implications.  The 
strike  is  to  be  used  not  simply  as  a  means  to 
secure  redress  for  economic  wrongs  but  as 
a  means  through  which  the  Government 
may  be  conquered  and  destroyed."  * 

As  it  is  a  general  principle  that  no  strike 
is  licit  unless  it  be  for  the  attainment  of  a 
grave  and  just  cause,  such  strikes  merit  our 
unqualified  condemnation,  for  a  cause  could 
hardly  be  more  unjust,  both  in  se  and  in  the 
extension  of  the  injustice  which  would  be 
committed.  Such  causes  are  in  direct  oppo- 
sition to  legal,  as  well  as  to  commutative 
justice. 

Authority  is  essential  both  for  individual 
welfare  and  for  the  common  good.  Man  has 
a  personal  end  in  existence,  but  his  nature  is 
so  constituted  that  he  must  work  out  that 
end  as  a  member  of  society.  For  the  full 
exercise  and  development  of  his  faculties 
and    for   the    complete    attainment    of   his 

1  The  Communist  Manifesto,  p.  10,  quoted  by  the  Wash- 
ington Post,  Jan.  25,  1920. 


76    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

natural  aspirations,  society  is  essential.  But 
"without  authority  there  can  be  no  society, 
for  society  means  the  harmonizing  of  mani- 
fold interests,  the  direction  of  many  indi- 
vidual efforts  away  from  purely  personal 
ends  and  a  constant  life  of  'give  and  take' 
for  the  common  good.  Now,  as  we  know  it, 
human  nature  is  more  prone  to  take  than 
to  give,  more  prone  to  ignore  than  to  respect 
the  rights  of  others  when  personal  aggran- 
dizement is  sought.  Hence,  the  need  of  an 
external  power  calls  authority  to  control  the 
selfishness  of  the  individual,  to  compel  him 
to  submit  to  restraint."  *  Therefore,  to  aim 
at  the  destruction  of  authority  through  a 
strike  is  to  make  a  vital  thrust  at  the  best 
interests  of  the  community,  and  so  merits 
unconditional  condemnation. 

Nor  can  the  abolition  of  the  institution  of 
private  property  be  considered  as  a  just 
cause  for  a  strike.  In  the  Encyclical  of 
Pope  Leo  XIII,  we  are  told  that  these  pro- 
posals of  the  socialists  are  "manifestly 
against  justice,"  that  the  right  of  private 
property  in  land  is  "granted  to  man  by 
nature,"  that  it  is  derived  "from  nature,  not 

'Cathrein,  Phil.  Moral.,  n.  428;  cf.  Kelleher,  Private  Own- 
ership, p.  65.     New  York,  1911. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     77 

from  man,  and  the  State  has  the  right  to 
control  its  use  in  the  interest  of  the  public 
good  alone,  but  by  no  means  to  abolish  it 
altogether."  What  the  State  may  not  un- 
dertake, not  even  by  peaceful  means,  it  goes 
without  saying  that  no  private  association 
such  as  a  body  of  laborers,  no  matter  how 
numerous  they  may  be,  can  be  justified  in 
attempting  to  accomplish  by  the  revolution- 
ary methods  of  a  general  strike.  The  over- 
throw of  an  institution  which  "under  present 
conditions  is  necessary  for  individual  and 
social  welfare"  certainly  can  not  furnish  a 
just  cause  for  a  strike.  To  undertake  a 
strike  for  the  purpose  of  destroying  any  in- 
dividual right  to  private  property,  as  it 
would  involve  a  violation  of  commutative 
justice,  must  be  condemned  as  unlawful 
under  any  circumstances. 

2.    PROPORTIONATE   CAUSE 

BUT  every  just  cause  or  right  to 
which  the  workers  may  lay  claim 
will  not  on  that  account  alone  be  a 
cause  justifying  a  strike.  There  must  in 
every  case  be  some  proportion  between  the 
end  sought  and  the  evils  which  are  likely  to 


78    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

result  directly  or  indirectly  from  the  strike. 
As  the  "paralyzing  of  labor  not  only  affects 
the  masters  and  their  workpeople  alike,  but 
it  is  extremely  injurious  to  trade  and  the 
general  interests  of  the  public,  and,  more- 
over, on  such  occasions  violence  and  disor- 
der are  generally  not  very  far  distant  and 
thus  frequently  it  happens  that  the  public 
peace  is  imperiled,"  1  so  the  cause  of  the 
strike  must  not  only  be  reasonable,  that  is, 
just,  but  it  must  also  be  of  sufficient  gravity 
to  justify  so  great  disturbance  in  the  eco- 
nomic and  social  relations.  If  the  evils  are 
sure  to  outweigh  the  good  effects  to  be 
obtained,  the  strike  can  under  no  considera- 
tion be  justified.  On  this  score  the  Boston 
police  strike  of  1919  must  surely  be  con- 
demned, no  matter  how  just  their  claims 
may  have  been.  In  fact,  "it  may  safely  be 
^asserted  that  no  grievances  are  ever  so  great 
as  to  render  morally  lawful  the  strike 
of  the  city's  police  force  in  the  United 
States."2  ' 

Strikes  are  a  "plague  to  society"  and  not 
unfrequently  fail  in  the  attainment  of  the 
object  sought.    Reason,  therefore,  demands 

*Leo  XIII,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor,  1891. 
2  Catholic    Charities    Review,    Editorial,    November,    1919, 
p.  264. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     79 

that  they  be  not  entered  on  for  a  trivial 
though  just  cause.    To  enter  upon  a  strike 
for     "slight     reasons     will     certainly     of- 
fend   against    legal    justice    as    well    as 
against  charity."  x    The  strike  is  bound  to 
affect  gravely  the  business  of  the  employer, 
who  by  the  action  of  the  men  is  made  to 
suffer  "considerable  loss  and  in  many  cases 
irreparable  loss.    Machines  lie  idle,  expenses 
accumulate  without  corresponding  returns, 
the  normal  relations  with  other  firms  are  in- 
terrupted, contracts  fail  to  be  fulfilled;  cus- 
tomers go  away  perhaps  permanently  and 
the  stability  of  the  firm  is  generally  shaken. 
The  bad  effects  are  often  perceptible  even 
many  years  after  the  strike  has  been  brought 
to  an  end.  .  .  .  Then  there  are  equally  if 
not  more  grave  consequences  on  the  side  of 
the  employee,  of  his  family  and  the  public 
at  large.     Some  of  these  evils  are  physical 
and  mental    (hunger,   poverty,   misery   of 
mind ) ,  some  are  moral.    The  latter  are  prac- 
tically inseparable  from  the  strike.    A  strike 
brings  into  exercise  the  most  violent  and 
terrible  of  human  passions.    Directly  it  in- 
volves a  violation  of  charity.     Incidentally 

1  Vermeersch,    Quaest.    de    Just.,    475;    cf.    Cronin,    The 
Science  of  Ethics,  Vol.  II,  p.  263. 


80     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

yet  almost  invariably  it  involves  drunken- 
ness, irreligion,  loss  of  self-respect  both  on 
the  part  of  women  and  men,  particularly 
the  former.  In  times  of  strikes  reason  seems 
to  lose  its  sway  over  the  most  normal  minds 
and  the  best  and  most  circumspect  of  per- 
sons tend  to  become  lowered  and  demoral- 
ized." x 

Now  it  would  be  an  exaggeration  to  say 
that  all  the  evils  described  above  are  to  be 
found  connected  with  every  strike.  It 
would,  moreover,  be  untrue  to  state  that  the 
reports  generally  found  in  the  daily  press 
present  an  accurate  account  of  the  actual 
conditions  attending  strikes,  for  "concern- 
ing the  prevalence  of  the  former  practice 
(violence)  there  is  a  great  deal  of  exaggera- 
tion in  the  public  press  and  especially  in  the 
statements  of  some  of  the  employers." 2 
According  to  John  Mitchell,  the  amount  of 
violence  in  strikes  is  infinitesimal  when  com- 
pared with  that  which  attends  the  ordinary 
course  of  life.  "During  the  five  months  of 
the  anthracite  strike  eight  men  were  killed, 
three  or  four  of  these  deaths  being  caused  by 
men  on  strike  or  claiming  to  be  in  sympathy 

^ronin,  op.  cit.,  pp.  356-362. 

2  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  106. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     81 

with  the  union ;  while  if  the  mines  had  been 
operated  during  this  period  and  had  main- 
tained the  average  number  of  accidents,  two 
hundred  men  would  have  been  killed  and  six 
hundred  seriously  maimed  or  injured."  * 

Even  after  making  due  allowance  for 
exaggerations  and  deliberate  misrepresen- 
tations of  the  amount  of  violence  found  con- 
nected with  strikes,  still  the  evils  of  which 
the  strike  is  either  the  occasion  or  the  cause 
are  sufficiently  grave  to  call  for  serious  con- 
sideration, threatening,  as  they  do  at  times, 
hot  only  the  prosperity  but  the  very  exist- 
ence of  industry,  while  at  the  same  time  in- 
flicting grave  injuries  on  individual  and 
social  welfare. 

It  might  be  argued  that,  whatever  might 
be  the  justification  of  the  strike  in  the  ab- 
stract, in  view  of  these  evils  which  are 
all  too  frequently  the  accompaniment  of 
strikes,  they  must  in  general  be  considered 
immoral.  Now  while  it  is  true  that  there  are 
many  and  grave  evils  to  be  found  connected 
with  most,  if  not  all,  strikes,  we  must  re- 
member that,  "the  incidental  abuses  for 
which  the  directors  of  the  strike  are  not  re- 
sponsible" and  which  are  frequently  of  very 

1  Organized  Labor,  p.  322. 


82     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

grave  character,  "cannot  affect  the  justice  of 
the  strike.  Responsibility  for  them  rests 
upon  their  instigators.  As  to  those  evils 
which  are  directly  caused  by  the  strike  they 
are  not  of  such  a  nature  as  cannot  be  per- 
mitted for  the  higher  good  aimed  at  in  these 
industrial  battles,"  *  for  in  this  as  in  other 
cases  "it  is  always  permitted  to  place  a  good 
or  indifferent  cause  from  which  a  two-fold 
effect  follows,  provided  that  the  end  of  the 
agent  be  just,  that  there  be  a  sufficiently 
grave  reason,  and  that  the  good  effect  flow 
no  less  immediately  from  the  action  than  the 
bad."  2  Besides  we  must  not  forget  that 
many  of  "these  abuses  and  anti-social  conse- 
quences are  not  essential  to  strikes"  3  and 
that  after  all,  the  acute  hardships  attendant 
upon  strikes  are  but  temporary,  and  the 
loss  to  trade  and  commerce  ceases  to  be  very 
noticeable  when  things  have  got  time  to 
adjust  themselves.  On  the  other  hand,  a 
successful  strike  may  have  the  effect  of  lift- 
ing a  large  class  of  the  community  perma- 
nently above  the  marginal  line  of  destitu- 
tion.   As  a  matter  of  fact,  as  economists  tes- 

1Lehmkuhl,    Arbeitersvertrag    und    Strike,    Die    Sociale 
Frasje,  1895,  p.  55. 
'  Genicot,  Theol.  Moral.,  Vol.  I,  p.  23. 
'Kelleher,  op.  cit.,  p.  16. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     83 

tify,  "it  is  certain  that  the  frequent  exercise 
of  the  strike  has  resulted  in  raising  the 
standard  of  many  people." 1  Neither  is 
there  any  doubt  but  that  it  has  conferred 
considerable  moral  benefits  on  the  com- 
munity in  removing  gravely  unjust  condi- 
tions and  immoral  surroundings. 

Furthermore,  in  instituting  a  comparison 
between  the  good  to  be  secured  and  the  evils 
attendant  upon  a  strike  we  must  not  lose 
sight  of  the  very  grave  evils  that  the 
laborers,  who  themselves  form  a  portion  of 
society,  are  called  upon  to  suffer  by  being 
denied  the  right  to  a  just  wage  or  by  being 
forced  to  labor  under  conditions  gravely  in- 
jurious to  physical,  intellectual,  and  moral 
life.  These  workmen  should  count  man  for 
man  as  much  as  that  of  any  other  section  of 
the  community.  Besides,  we  must  not  neg- 
lect the  fact  that  society  is  bound  as  a  whole 
to  suffer  injury  also  from  any  grave  injus- 
tice inflicted  on  any  section  of  the  laboring 
class.  The  festering  sore  of  squalid  poverty 
caused  by  the  inhuman  treatment  to  which 
many  employees  are  subjected  breeds  enor- 
mous demoralization  in  the  general  social 
body.    A   strike  which  would   attempt   to 

1  Nearing  and  Watson,  Economics,  p.  394. 


84     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ameliorate  such  conditions  by  securing  just 
treatment  for  the  oppressed  workers,  like 
the  knife  of  the  surgeon  removing  the  ulcer- 
ous growth,  is  bound  to  inflict  considerable, 
it  may  be  intense,  suffering,  yet  who  would 
bid  the  surgeon  stay  his  stroke  did  he  real- 
ize that  in  such  action  alone  lay  hope  of  re- 
lief? 

Yet,  as  major  surgical  operations  are 
resorted  to  only  in  case  of  very  serious 
malady,  so  also  a  strike,  being  a  drastic 
remedy,  can  only  be  resorted  to  where  the 
grievance  under  which  the  laborers  suffer  is 
a  correspondingly  grave  one.  It  is  a  well 
established  principle  of  ethics  "that  so  many 
and  such  great  evils"  as  a  strike  occasions 
"can  only  be  permitted  for  some  very  grave 
and  proportionate  reason."  *  Applying 
this  principle,  Fr.  Marshall  would  hold,  in 
view  of  the  many  evils  that  follow  strikes 
from  one  cause  or  another,  that  "if  the 
laborer  is  getting  a  fair  wage,  it  would  not 
be  lawful  to  enforce  a  higher  wage  by  a 
strike."  2  It  would  seem  that  such  a  gen- 
eral conclusion  could  hardly  be  warranted 

1Tanquerey,  Theologia  Moralis,  Vol.  Ill,  p.  378. 
2  "The  Ethical  Aspects  of  Boycotting"  Irish  Theological 
Quart,  Col.  1,  p.  445. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    85 

unless  Fr.  Marshall  has  in  mind,  which  is 
not  likely,  when  he  speaks  of  a  "fair  wage" 
one  which  approaches  very  near  to  the  maxi- 
mum just  wage.  As  a  matter  of  fact  such  a 
simple  situation  as  contemplated  would  sel- 
dom if  ever  arise.  The  cause  for  which 
strikes  are  called,  generally,  if  not  always, 
involves  a  complication  of  causes.  And 
while  it  would  be  unreasonable  were  strikes 
indulged  in  frequently  for  the  absolutely 
highest  wage  that  could  in  justice  be  de- 
manded in  connection  with  any  particular 
labor,  still  it  is  possible  to  conceive  an  in- 
stance where  conditions  are  such  and  the 
chances  of  success  so  certain  that  a  strike, 
conducted  by  a  well  organized  body  of 
laborers,  "might  be  lawful  even  though  the 
wage  demanded  lies  somewhat  above  the 
lowest  limit  and  even  in  the  region  of  the 
highest."  ! 

Some  economists  have  questioned  on  a 
different  ground  the  wisdom  of  "strikes,  for 
increases  beyond  what  is  normal  in  a  given 
industry,  provided  the  normal  itself  be  a 
just  maximum."  2  In  their  opinion  such 
strikes,    even   though    successful,    "are    of 

1  Cronin,  op.  cit.,  p.  362. 

2  Cf.  Crosby,  When  to  Strike  and  How  to  Strike,  Chap. 
VIII;  Portenar,  Organized  Labor,  p.  86. 


86     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

doubtful  benefit  either  to  the  strikers  them- 
selves or  to  the  masses  of  laborers  in  gen- 
eral" as  in  the  long  run  the  purchasing 
power  of  wages  will  become  no  greater,  if 
not  less,  than  before,  because  of  the  trans- 
ference of  the  increased  cost  of  wages  to  the 
cost  of  the  article  produced  and  all  depend- 
ent goods.  This  contention  is  hardly  borne 
out  by  an  examination  of  the  facts  of  the 
case.  According  to  Sydney  Webb,  who  has 
made  quite  a  thorough  study  of  the  case, 
"such  strikes  are  by  no  means  useless,  but 
they  do  in  reality  raise  not  only  the  money 
value  but  also  the  real  value  of  wages."  * 

It  should  be  borne  in  mind  that  "a  seem- 
ingly insignificant  wrong  may  assume  real 
importance  as  being  the  thin  edge  of  a 
wage"  2  which,  if  allowed  to  penetrate  un- 
checked, may  cause  very  grave  injustice  to 
the  laborers  and  so  would  constitute  a  truly 
serious  cause  for  strike  action.  For  as  an 
incident,  trifling  in  itself,  may  involve  a 
principle  important  enough  to  justify  the 
State  in  unchaining  the  horrors  of  war,  so  an 
incident  in  the  industrial  world,  such  as  an 

1  Journal    of   Political    Economy,    Feb.,    1913,    "Minimum 
Wage." 

2  McDonald,    The    Ethical    Aspects   of    Boycotting,    Irish 
Theol.  Quart.,  Vol.  1,  p.  337. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    87 

unjust  dismissal,  trifling  in  itself  though  it 
may  seem  to  many,  may  involve  a  principle 
vital  to  the  welfare  of  labor,  such  as  the 
right  to  organize  or  the  right  to  bargain 
collectively,  which  might  constitute  a  suf- 
ficiently grave  cause  to  justify  recourse  to 
the  supreme  arbitrament  of  a  strike. 

3.      WELL-FOUNDED  HOPE  OF  SUCCESSFUL 
ISSUE 

THE  end  sought  by  the  strikers  is  the 
successful  furtherance  of  the  cause 
espoused.  Should  their  claim  be 
just  and  one  commensurate  with  the  evils 
involved,  it  does  not  necessarily  follow  that 
the  laborers  would,  on  that  account,  be  jus- 
tified in  letting  loose  the  evils  of  industrial 
strife;  for  unless  the  strike  is  a  successful 
one  the  second  state  of  the  laborers  will 
surely  be  worse  than  the  first.  Besides  the 
loss  of  wages  they  will  have  to  bear  the  addi- 
tional burdens  of  the  strike  itself  without 
being  in  any  way  compensated  for  the  losses 
and  hardships  suffered.  Besides,  there  will 
be  fostered  a  chronic  spirit  of  discontent  and 
ill-will  between  the  laborers  and  the  em- 
ployer under  whose  hand  they  are  forced  to 


88     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

bear  with  continued  injustice.  Violent  and 
lawless  outbreaks  are  more  liable  to  occur 
where  there  is  little  hope  of  success,  the  men 
being  goaded  on  to  commit  acts  of  violence 
by  the  thought  of  the  continued  injustice 
which  they  will  be  forced  to  suffer  should 
their  strike  prove  a  failure.  Such  a  strike 
is  likely  to  involve  very  great  anxiety  and 
suffering  to  innocent  women  and  children, 
while  society  itself  is  bound  to  suffer  very 
grave  disturbance  and  injury  without  being 
compensated  in  any  way.  Now  just  as  a 
declaration  of  war,  owing  to  the  fearful 
calamities  and  sufferings  which  it  is  certain 
to  entail,  is  unlawful  whenever  there  is  not 
a  reasonable  prospect  of  success,  even 
though  the  cause  be  just,  so  any  body  of 
"laborers  who  without  a  well  founded  hope 
of  success  expose  themselves,  their  families, 
and  the  general  public  to  the  certain  suffer- 
ing and  inconveniences  of  a  strike,  are  acting 
unlawfully."  1  When  industrial  wars  are 
frequent,  especially  if  they  are  lightly  en- 
tered upon  with  little  thought  of  the  possi- 
bilities of  success,  each  new  strike  tends  to 
increase  greatly  the  chronic  disorder  of  the 
social  body. 

1McKenna,  The  Church  and  Labor,  p.  92. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    89 

It  may  happen  that,  although  the  labor- 
ers have  a  very  grave  cause  which  is  at  the 
same  time  unquestionably  just,  still,  owing 
to   certain   circumstances,   a   strike  .under- 
taken to  remedy  such  injustice  is  certain  to 
fail.     Should  the  laborers  in  such  a  case 
still  persist  in  calling  a  strike  when  pru- 
dence and  sane  reason  would  dictate  "The 
bearing  of  present  wrongs  rather  than  flying 
to  ills  they  know  not  of,"  their  action  would 
be  clearly  unwarranted.     The  conclusion  is 
certain,   then,   that    "a   strike   will    offend 
against    legal    justice— be    unjust — where 
there  is  no  reasonable  possibility  of  carrying 
it  to  a  successful  issue."  1    But  it  does  not 
follow  that  a  strike  must  be  classed  as  un- 
successful   on    every    occasion    when    the 
laborers  are  compelled  to  return  to  work 
without  having  their  demands  granted  at 
that  time.     A  strike,  although  apparently 
unsuccessful,  may  have  the  effect  of  com- 
pelling the  employer  to  remedy  the  injus- 
tice, although  not  immediately.     So  if  the 
workmen  are  made  to  suffer  grave  injus- 
tice, even  though  there  be  no  hope  of  imme- 
diate success,  they  may  strike  provided  there 

'Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  p.  475;  Genicot,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  II, 

p.  224. 


90     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

is  good  reason  for  believing  that  they  will 
benefit  at  a  later  date.  Such  is  the  opinion 
of  Genicot 1  who  also  states  that  such  condi- 
tions will  not  be  infrequent,  since  the  fear 
of  strikes  does  much  towards  remedying 
abuses  and  improving  the  conditions  of 
labor.  As  frequently  it  will  not  be  very 
easy  to  judge  with  any  degree  of  accuracy 
the  possible  outcome  of  strikes,  such  a  con- 
clusion would  seem  reasonable,  provided, 
however,  in  these  cases,  that  the  cause  for 
such  strikes  be  grave  in  proportion  to  the 
additional  risks  taken. 

1  Moral.  Theol.,  n.  22. 


IV 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

IN  RELATION  TO  THE  MEANS 

EMPLOYED  TO  ENFORCE 

THE   DEMANDS 

1.     LESS  DRASTIC  MEANS  UNSUCCESSFUL 

EVEN  though  the  end  or  cause  of 
the  laborers  be  just  in  itself  and  of 
a  sufficiently  grave  character  to 
offset  the  many  evils  that  flow  directly  or 
indirectly  from  a  strike,  it  does  not  follow 
that  therefore  the  strike  is  necessarily  just. 
The  justice  of  a  cause  may  become  vitiated 
through  the  use  of  immoral  means  used  in 
its  promotion.  So  in  enforcing  the  just 
claims  of  the  laborers  no  immoral  means 
may  be  employed.  The  means  or  methods 
used  in  promoting  a  strike  must  not  only 
involve  no  injustice  but  they  must  be  rea- 
sonable as  well.  A  strike  is  a  drastic  method 
of  settling  an  industrial  dispute,  and  like 

91 


92     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

all  drastic  remedies,  can  only  be  resorted  to 
when  peaceful  or  other  less  objectionable 
methods  of  securing  justice  have  failed. 
The  strike  methods  of  settling  the  dif- 
ferences between  the  employer  and  the 
employees  may  only  be  resorted  to  as  a  last 
recourse.  All  moralists  '  lay  this  down  as 
one  of  the  conditions  necessary  to  be  real- 
ized that  the  strike  may  be  justified: 
"strikes,  like  wars  and  injurious  acts  of  self- 
defence,  are  not  to  be  accounted  lawful  be- 
cause they  are  not  unjust  in  end  or  manner, 
but  it  is  also  required  that  there  appear  no 
other  way  of  obtaining  a  sufficiently  grave 
good  but  by  the  strike  or  lockout."  2  If  it 
is  possible  through  peaceful  methods  of 
"bargaining,"  arbitration,  etc.,  to  obtain  the 
desired  end,  or  if  there  is  reasonable  hope 
that  a  successful  issue  may  be  had  by  resort- 
ing to  these  means,  then  to  resort  to  a  strike 
"where  less  drastic  measures  will  suffice  will 
certainly  offend  against  legal  justice"  3  and 
generally  will  involve  a  violation  of  charity. 

^ranquerey,  Theol.  Moral.,  Vol.  Ill,  n.  486;  Genicot, 
Theol.  Moral.,  n.  22;  Noldin,  Theol.  Moral.,  n.  307;  Ryan, 
The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  106;  Kelleher,  Irish  Theol. 
Quart.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  15;  McKenna,  The  Church  and  Labor, 
p.  93. 

*  Vermeersch,  Quaest.  de  Just.,  n.  472. 

*  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  n.  475. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    93 

So  in  the  industrial  war  between  the 
United  States  Steel  Corporation  and  its 
employees  during  1919  "both  parties  to  the 
dispute  acted  unreasonably"  for  while  the 
employees  had  a  just  and  grave  grievance 
against  the  Corporation,  still  "the  union 
leaders  should  never  have  called  the  strike. 
They  ought  to  have  acceded  to  the  request 
of  President  Wilson  to  withhold  such  action 
until  the  assembling  of  the  Industrial  Con- 
ference of  October,"  1  when  the  differences 
might  have  been  settled  without  resorting  to 
industrial  warfare.  Even  though  many  of 
their  aims  were  legitimate,  particularly  their 
demand  for  the  recognition  of  "collective 
bargaining,"  as  the  union  leaders  failed 
to  wait  until  they  had  exhausted  all  peace- 
ful methods  of  redress,  their  action  must  be 
condemned.  On  the  other  hand  "the  posi- 
tion of  the  officials  of  the  Steel  Corporation 
was  indefensible  because  it  included  a  re- 
fusal to  treat  with  the  representatives  of 
the  union  or  of  any  other  labor  union."  2 

While,  generally,  notice  of  the  intended 
strike  should  be  given  to  the  employer,  to 

'The    Catholic    Charities    Review,    Editorial,    December, 
1919,  p.  292. 
»Op.  cit.,  p.  292. 


94     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

require  that  the  laborers  always  fulfil  such 
condition  would  at  times  seem  to  work 
unreasonable  hardship  on  the  employees 
who  are  already  subjected  to  injustice.  Such 
a  warning  is  usually  equitable  and  demanded 
by  charity  in  order  to  prevenl  needless  loss 
and  injury  to  the  employer,  particularly 
where  the  employer  is  guilty  of  no  real  injus- 
tice towards  the  workers.  Still  the  rule  can- 
not be  made  absolutely  genera]  or  binding 
on  the  employees.  1  )elay  necessary  for  such 
previous  notice  might  at  times  work  grave 
hardships  on  the  employees,  while,  on  the 
other  hand,  swift  action  may  under  particu- 
lar circumstances  prove  the  only  way  of  vin- 
dicating a  just  claim.  On  the  supposition 
that  the  employer  is  committing  an  injustice 
in  not  according  the  demands,  he  cannot 
claim  a  consideration  he  is  not  himself  show- 
ing. "If  the  employer  is  acting  unjustly 
and  cannot  be  brought  to  observe  his  just 
obligations  by  peaceful  methods  of  negotia- 
tions, etc.,  his  employees  may  be  justified  in 
striking  without  further  warning."  1 

On  the  supposition  that  there  exists  a  suf- 
ficiently grave  cause  and  that  the  only  hope 
of  remedying  the  injustice  of  the  employer 

1McKenna,  op.  cit.,  p.  93. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE    95 

in  refusing  to  grant  the  demands  of  the 
workers  is  in  a  strike,  then  resort  may  be  had 
to  such  measures  which  will  be  morally  de- 
fensible provided  the  means  used  by  the 
strikers  for  the  enforcement  of  their  claim 
be  not  evil,  nor  constitute  the  violation  of 
any  just  right  of  others. 

A  man  can  never  be  morally  justified  in 
violating  the  strict  right  of  another.  To 
seek  to  further  a  cause,  no  matter  how  just, 
by  unjust  or  immoral  means  is  never  per- 
missible, and  the  employment  of  such  means 
would  be  to  submit  the  whole  process  to  con- 
demnation as  immoral.  It  can  sometimes 
happen  that  a  strike  otherwise  just  may  be 
rendered  unjust  through  the  employment  of 
means  or  methods  on  the  part  of  the  strikers 
which  violate  the  sacred  rights  of  some  other 
party.  Such  would  be  the  case  if  the  strik- 
ers endeavored  to  force  their  claims  by 
means  of  fraud  or  by  the  unjust  injury  or 
destruction  of  the  life  or  property  of  the 
employer 1  and  where,  as  sometimes  hap- 
pens, these  methods  "play  a  considerable 
part,  strikes  must  be  admitted  to  be  unjust 
to  the  extent  to  which  these  unjust  means 

1Cf.  Vermeersch,  op.  cit.,  n.  474;  Genicot,  op.  cit.,  p.  24. 


96     THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

are  employed."  *  The  fact  that  the  employer 
has  been  guilty  of  injustice  toward  the  em- 
ployees does  not  alter  the  case.  Immoral 
means  can  no  more  be  used  in  resisting  injus- 
tice than  in  promoting  any  other  good  cause 
where  no  injustice  is  involved.2  A  good  end 
never  justifies  the  use  of  unjust  means. 
"Religion  teaches  the  laboring  man  and  the 
artisan  .  .  .  never  to  injure  the  property 
nor  to  outrage  the  person  of  an  employer, 
never  to  resort  to  violence  in  defending  their 
own  cause  nor  to  engage  in  riot  and  dis- 
order." 3 

Nor  is  there  any  suspension  of  the  civic  ob- 
ligations of  those  connected  with  the  prose- 
cution of  the  industrial  war.  "It  must  be 
borne  in  mind  (what  seems  to  be  forgotten 
by  the  actors  on  both  sides  of  such  contro- 
versies) that  the  controversy  is  not  warfare 
in  the  sense  that,  for  the  time  being,  the 
usual  rules  of  conduct  are  changed  as  in  the 
case  of  an  actual  war  between  two  countries. 
There  is  ...  no  change  in  the  ordinary 
rules  of  society  but  these  remain  the  same 
as  before,  commanding  what  was  thereto- 

1  Kelleher,  op.  cit.,  p,  5. 

*Cf.  Tanquerey,  op.  cit.,  Vol.  Ill,  n.  847. 

3  Leo  XIII,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     97 

fore  right  and  prohibiting  what  was  there- 
tofore wrong."  *  The  laws  of  the  State  and 
the  obligations  of  justice  bind  to  the  same 
extent  morally  as  they  did  previous  to  the 
strike.  If,  as  sometimes  happens,  the  em- 
ployer should  resort  to  illegal  or  irmnoral 
means  to  uphold  his  position,  that  will  in  no 
way  justify  the  strikers  in  retaliating  by  the 
use  of  physical  force,  violence  or  other  im- 
moral means,  not  even  to  mete  out  the 
punishment  he  may  clearly  deserve.  "Pri- 
vate authority," — and  strikes  must  be 
classed  under  that  head  no  matter  how  many 
or  numerous  the  men  in  a  given  strike  may 
be, — "may  not  take  the  law  in  its  own  hands 
to  mete  out  justice  except  it  be  the  only 
defense  at  hand  against  an  unjust  aggres- 
sor." 2  This  is  demanded  in  the  interests  of 
the  general  welfare  of  society. 

2.      PEACEFUL  PICKETING 

The  means  which  may  be  lawfully  utilized 
in  the  conduct  of  a  strike  may  be  classed 
under  two  heads:  first,  the  cessation  from 
work  on  the  part  of  the  employees ;  and  sec- 

1  Groat,   American   Courts  in  Labor   Cases,  "Wilcutt  vs. 
Bricklayer  Unions,"  p.  72. 

2  Pottier,  De  Jure  et  Justitia,  n.  179,  Liege,  1900. 


98    THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ondly,  the  exercise  of  a  certain  degree  of 
economic  and  moral  compulsion  bearing  not 
only  on  the  employer  but  also  on  other  labor- 
ers to  prevent  them  from  taking  the  places 
vacated  by  the  strikers.  We  have  already 
seen  that  under  certain  conditions,  which  we 
assume  are  complied  with,  the  first  of  these 
is  lawful.  It  now  remains  for  us  to  consider 
the  second  or  the  exercise  of  force  to  compel 
the  granting  of  the  lawful  demands  by  the 
strikers,  and  under  this  head  we  shall  have 
to  consider,  what  is  the  crucial  problem  in 
the  conduct  of  strikes — the  matter  of  picket- 
ing, or  the  attempt  on  the  part  of  the  work- 
ers to  turn  away  those  who  may  wish  to  con- 
tinue working  as  well  as  those  who  attempt 
to  fill  the  places  vacated  by  the  strikers.  It 
is  of  extreme  importance  for  the  success  of 
the  strike  that  the  employer  be  prevented 
from  carrying  on  his  business  in  a  normal 
way.  It  is  in  accomplishing  this  that  antag- 
onistic forces  are  most  likely  to  clash  and 
that  outbursts  of  violence  have  most  fre- 
quently occurred. 

It  is  frequently  stated  by  people  not  in 
sympathy  with  the  strikers  as  an  unques- 
tionable fact  that  "whatever  right  the  men 
may  have  to  refuse  to  work  themselves  they 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE     99 

surely  have  no  right  to  prevent  others  from 
working."  We  have  seen  above  that  the  use 
of  persuasion  does  not  necessarily  involve 
the  violation  of  any  right  either  of  the  em- 
ployer, or  the  general  public,  or  of  other 
laborers. 

If  the  strike  be  itself  a  just  one,  theologi- 
ans allow  what  is  called  "peaceful  picket- 
ing" to  dissuade  others  from  taking  their 
places,  for  "pressure  even  in  combination 
brought  to  bear  on  one  person  to  the  detri- 
ment of  another  is  not  necessarily  unfair  or 
unjust  provided  there  is  a  reasonable  cause 
for  applying  it."  *  But  it  is  never  permitted 
to  injure  the  employer  or  his  property  in 
the  prosecution  of  a  strike.  So  also  the 
strikers  are  not  permitted  to  attempt  by 
fraud,  lying,  violence,  or  physical  force 
either  to  compel  those  who  may  decide  to 
continue  working  to  join  them  in  the  strike, 
or  to  prevent  others  from  taking  the  posi- 
tions vacated.2  Such  action  would  "involve 
a  twofold  violation  of  justice,  a  violation  of 
the  rights  of  the  employer  as  well  as  of  the 
other  workers."  3 

1  McDonald,  Irish  Theol.  Quart.,  Vol.  I,  p.  340. 
aCf.  Tanquerey,  op.  cit.,  n.  847;  Vertneersch,  op.  cit.,  n. 
474  (b). 
sNoldin,  op.  cit.,  n.  306  (3). 


100  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

But  although  the  strikers  have  do  right  to 
use  unjust  means  to  prevent  others  from 
taking  the  places  vacated,  still  there  is  do 

valid  reason  which  one  can  urge  to  show  why 
they  should  not  he  permitted  to  use  every 
means  that  is  not  positively  unjust  to  force 
the  employer  to  aeeede  to  their  reasonable 
demands.  Were  the  strikers  not  morally 
justified  in  endeavoring  to  persuade  others 
from  continuing  work  or  from  taking  the 
places  vacated,  the  strikers  would  often  have 
no  means  of  vindicating  their  rights.1  So 
although  it  is  at  this  point  that  the  greatest 
danger  of  injustice  being  committed  by  the 
strikers  lies,  still,  as  there  is  nothing  unusual 
in  endeavoring  to  get  the  assistance  of  others 
in  enforcing  just  claims,  there  will  conse- 
quently be  no  injustice  in  the  act  of  picket- 
ing "unless  the  means  adopted  to  induce 
wrorkers  to  join  the  strike  and  to  prevent 
others  from  taking  up  vacant  positions  in 
the  business  against  which  the  strike  is  de- 
clared are  unjust  in  themselves."  2  It  is 
conceded  generally  by  moralists  that  per- 
suasion and  arguments  which  do  not  partake 
of  the  nature  of  intimidation,  may,  in  order 

*Cf.  Tanquerev,  op.  cit.,  n.  847. 
2  Kelleher,  op.  cit.,  p.  12. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  101 

to  induce  others  to  join  the  strike,  be  ad- 
dressed to  the  workmen  who  do  not  wish  to 
go  on  a  strike  as  well  as  to  those  who  might 
be  inclined  to  fill  the  vacated  positions.  If 
the  injustice  of  the  employer  is  clearly  evi- 
dent and  such  as  gravely  affects  workers  in 
general,  it  will  not  constitute  an  act  of  injus- 
tice against  the  employer  for  the  strikers  to 
use  moral  force  to  prevent  him  from  carry- 
ing on  a  business  in  the  prosecution  of  which 
the  claims  of  justice  are  violated. 

To  what  extent  moral  pressure  may  be 
brought  to  bear  on  others  will  depend  on 
the  nature  of  the  case  to  which  it  is  applied. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  one  of  the  con- 
ditions under  which  pressure  is  legitimate  is 
that  it  be  "proportionate  to  the  wrong, 
whether  strict  or  merely  equitable,  which  it 
is  intended  to  avert  or  remedy."  1  Theolo- 
gians concede  that  the  strikers  have  the  right 
to  exclude  "scabs"  or  strike-breakers  from 
the  special  marks  of  charity  as  well  as  from 
ordinary  amenities  and  civilities  of  social 
life,  but  they  will  not  allow  a  denial  of  those 
considerations  which  fundamental  social 
relations  demand,  such  as  the  selling  of  the 

1  McDonald,  op.  cit.,  p.  445. 


102  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

necessaries  of  life  at  a  just  price.1  While 
the  use  of  unjust  fear  in  any  form  cannot 
be  permitted,  there  is  no  ground  for  holding 
the  persuasion  would  be  unjust  were  it  en- 
forced by  a  certain  amount  of  just  fear,  as 
for  instance,  that  whoever  remained  at  work 
after  a  strike  had  been  declared  or  whoever 
took  up  the  work  which  the  strikers  laid 
down,  should  be  ineligible  for  membership 
in  a  particular  trade  union.2  It  is  difficult 
to  fix  minutely  the  limits  of  what  would  be 
just  fear  in  this  connection,  but  in  general 
it  may  be  said  that  men  on  strike  can 
"justly  endeavor  to  persuade  others  to  join 
them  by  working  through  their  fear  of  any 
losses  they  could  justly  inflict  on  them"  3 
if  that  be  necessary  for  the  successful  prose- 
cution of  the  strike  against  an  employer  who 
refuses  to  accede  to  demands  for  the  removal 
of  injustice  against  the  workers.  In  such  a 
case  the  strike-breakers  may  be  regarded  as 
cooperating  with  the  employer  to  maintain 
the  injustice,  e.  g.,  the  payment  of  a  wage 
or  the  continuance  of  working  conditions 

xCf.  Genicot,  op.  cit.,  n.  22;  Lehmkuhl,  Theol.  Moral., 
Vol.  I,  n.  1119. 

2Cf.  Noldin,  Theol.  Moral.,  Vol.  II,  n.  306;  Lehmkuhl, 
op.  eit. 

8  Kelleher,  op.  cit.,  p.  12. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  103 

clearly  unjust,  and  moral  force  may  cer- 
tainly be  used  *  to  deter  them  from  materi- 
ally  cooperating  in   injuring  their   fellow 
workmen.    Of  course,  cases  may  arise  where 
material  cooperation  would  be  perfectly  jus- 
tifiable, e.  g.,  if  the  laborers  are  in  grave 
need.     In  this  and  in  the  cases  "where  the 
wage  is  'fair,'  it  is  not  lawful  to  use  even 
moral  force  against  them,"  2  at  least  not  to 
any  great  extent.  The  extent  to  which  moral 
force  is  permissible  will  in  all  cases  depend 
on  the  nature  of  the  demands  refused  by  the 
employer  and  on  how  far  the  laborer  or 
strike-breaker   is   justified   in    cooperating 
with  the  employer  in  the  refusal.    When  the 
strike  is  unjust,  strike-breakers  are  justified 
in  assisting  the  employer  in  suppressing  the 
unjust    action    of   the    former    employees. 
Their  action  will  also  be  justified  "when 
their  own  need  outweighs  the  need  of  the 
strikers    and   cannot   be   better   served  by 
remaining  idle."  3 

3.      PHYSICAL  VIOLENCE 

A  question  of  great  importance  in  con- 
nection with  the  conduct  of  a  strike,  partic- 

1  Cf .  Lehmkuhl,  Casus  278,  n.  895. 
3  McDonald,  op.  cit.,  p.  446. 
3  Ross,  Christian  Ethics,  p.  347. 


104  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ularly  in  relation  to  picketing,  is  whether  the 
use  of  violence  is  ever  permissible  or  justifi- 
able and,  if  so,  under  what  conditions  and 
to  what  extent.  It  is  certain  that  the  use  of 
violence  is  never  permitted  in  enforcing 
claims  the  denial  of  which  by  the  employer 
would  involve  no  real  injustice  to  the  work- 
ers. The  use  of  violence  to  private  individ- 
uals is  not  permissible  except  in  case  of  self- 
defence  against  the  injustice  of  another. 
Even  where  the  employer  is  guilty  of  an  act 
of  injustice  in  refusing  the  demands  "the 
workers  may  not  injure  his  person  or  his 
property.  Such  acts  involve  grave  injustice 
on  the  part  of  the  strikers,  being  prohibited 
by  the  natural  as  well  as  by  positive  law."  * 
But  it  may  be  objected  in  the  case  where 
the  strikers  are  endeavoring  to  enforce  their 
just  claim  to  a  living  wage,  or  to  other  rea- 
sonable conditions  of  work,  "are  not  those 
who  refuse  to  strike  to  be  considered  eser- 
vata  proportione'  as  one  who  has  snatched 
from  your  hand  the  only  weapon  whereby 
you  may  repel  the  unjust  assailant  of  your 
life?  May  not  those  who  are  compelling 
their  withdrawal  be  said  to  lack  their  'blame- 
less defence'  against  an  unjust  aggressor? 

xTanquerey,  Theol.  Moral.,  Vol.  Ill,  n.  847. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  105 

It  may  be  objected  that  the  liberty  of  those 
who  do  not  wish  to  withdraw  is  violated 
through  compulsion.  Cannot  the  reply  be 
made  that  liberty  ceases  where  it  trans- 
gresses another  right  or  impairs  the  com- 
mon good?  Furthermore,  those  who  do  not 
withdraw  take  away  the  only  means  whereby 
all  may  repel  force  by  force,  and  it  is  impor- 
tant to  the  common  good  that  many  of  the 
working  class  be  not  without  the  only  means 
of  escape  from  unjust  oppression."  *  To 
these  objections  Pottier  gives  no  definite 
answer.  If  violence  is  ever  permissible,  it 
is  only  on  the  fulfillment  of  certain  condi- 
tions which  will  rarely  obtain  in  actual  life. 
In  the  first  place,  there  must  be  no  other  less 
objectionable  means  by  which  the  same  end 
could  be  secured;  secondly,  it  must  be  cer- 
tain that  the  use  of  violence  will  prove  effec- 
tive; and  finally,  the  good  effects  to  follow 
must  not  only  be  certain  but  they  must  be 
great  in  proportion  to  the  evil  effects.2 

To  this  same  question  as  to  the  lawfulness 
of  violence,  Dr.  Ross  states  that  it  is  justi- 
fiable "against  the  employer  or  against 
strike-breakers  only  if  the  good  effects  ob- 

1  Pottier,  De  Jure  et  Just.,  n.  180. 
1  Cf .  op.  cit,  p.  209. 


106  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

tained  are  greater  than  the  social  disorder 
resulting  from  the  use  of  force."  He  con- 
cludes that  "this  practically  will  never  be  so, 
and  the  loss  of  public  good-will,  frequently 
the  determining  factor  in  the  success  of 
strikes,  usually  offsets  any  gain  by  vio- 
lence." 1  According  to  the  opinions  of  Pot- 
tier  and  Ross,  it  would  seem  that  the  use  of 
violence  in  these  cases  would  not  be  intrin- 
sically wrong,  but  is  forbidden  on  account  of 
the  grave  consequences  to  the  general  pub- 
lic which  would  seldom  be  offset  by  the  good 
result  obtained  from  the  use  of  violence. 
Most  theologians,  however,  hold  that  the 
"use  of  violence  is  prohibited  both  by  the 
natural  and  the  positive  law,  and  conse- 
quently may  never  be  permitted."  2 

Those  who  maintain  that  the  use  of  vio- 
lence as  a  means  of  defence  against  the  in- 
justice of  the  professional  strike-breakers 
and  of  the  employer — who  not  only  denies 
the  workers  what  is  theirs  in  justice,  but 
often  resorts  to  the  use  of  unjust  means  to 
compel  the  strikers  to  accept  the  continuance 
of  the  injustice — is  always  immoral,  base 

1  Christian  Ethics,  pp.  347-48. 

'Tanquerey,     Theol.     Moral.,     Vol.     Ill,    n.     847;     Ver- 
meersch,  op.  cat.,  n.  474. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  107 

their  conclusions  on  the  statement  that 
"there  are  other  means  for  safeguarding  the 
rights  of  the  laborers,"  a  statement  the  truth 
of  which  would  seem  questionable.  It  is 
quite  true  that  the  State  might  supply  such 
means,  and  it  would  seem  also  certain  that 
as  the  State  alone  has  the  power  to  safe- 
guard the  workers  against  manifest  injustice 
it  ought  to  exercise  that  power.  It  surely 
would  be  for  the  common  good.  But  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  the  State  fails  to  provide  the 
necessary  means  for  safeguarding  the  labor- 
ers' rights  to  a  decent  living  and  reasonable 
conditions  of  work.  Not  only  that,  but  in- 
directly, at  least  as  it  often  appears  to  the 
strikers,  the  authority  of  the  law  aids  the 
employer  in  defeating  them.  The  employer 
realizes  full  well  the  advantage  afforded  by 
the  presence  of  the  officers  of  the  law.  It 
gives  his  side  a  decided  moral  advantage. 
So  employers  have  at  times  been  accused  of 
having  provoked  violence  in  order  to  create 
a  necessity  for  their  presence.  "Investiga- 
tions, reliable  in  themselves  but  not  pub- 
lished until  the  trouble  is  over,  have  recently 
revealed  more  clearly  to  the  public  some  of 
the  methods  of  employers.  Sheriff's  posses 
or  even  State  militia,  often  equipped  and 


108  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

paid  by  the  employers,  detective  agencies, 
the  successors  to  strike-breaking  organiza- 
tions, furnish  an  element  that  is  naturally 
lawless  and  easily  excited."  *  In  the  shirt 
waist  strike  of  New  York  in  the  winter  of 
1909-10,  "women  pickets  were  attacked  by 
prostitutes  paid  high  up  for  stirring  up 
trouble  with  the  pickets."  2  The  laborers, 
who  are  aware  of  the  actual  facts  of  the 
case,  justify  their  use  of  violence  under  the 
"fight  the  devil  with  fire"  formula.  They 
feel  that  it  is  at  times  the  only  method  by 
which  they  can  safeguard  their  rights,  and 
it  would  be  very  difficult  to  prove  that  they 
are  always  wrong  in  their  conviction,  or  that 
"there  are  always  available  other  means  of 
safeguarding  their  rights"  against  unjust 
violation. 

However,  whether  the  use  of  violence  is 
ever  morally  justifiable  in  se  or  not,  evidence 
would  tend  to  show  that  resort  to  violence 
can  seldom  be  justifiable,  inasmuch  as  the 
good  results  to  be  gained  from  such  methods 
seldom  if  ever  are  sufficient  to  offset  the  evil 


1  Groat,  Organized  Labor  in  America,  pp.  193-4.  New 
York,  1919. 

2  Carlton,  History  and  Problems  of  Organized  Labor, 
p.  187,  New  York,  1911;  Summer,  The  Survey,  January  22, 
1910,  p.  553. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  109 

results.  The  laborers  themselves  are  begin- 
ning to  recognize  this  full  well  and  union- 
leaders  experienced  in  strikes  are  themselves 
generally  the  vigorous  opponents  of  vio- 
lence. John  Mitchell,  speaking  of  picketing 
and  the  use  of  violence,  says:  "Attempts 
must  be  made  by  peaceable  methods  to  pre- 
vent the  importation  of  new  men  and  where 
this  has  already  occurred  efforts  must  be 
made  to  induce  them  or  aid  them  to  seek  em- 
ployment elsewhere.  Above  and  beyond 
all,  the  leader  entrusted  with  the  conduct  of 
a  strike  must  be  alert  and  vigilant  in  the 
prevention  of  violence.  The  strikers  must 
be  made  constantly  aware  of  the  imperative 
necessity  of  remaining  peaceable.  ...  A 
single  act  of  violence,  while  it  may  deter  a 
strike-breaker  or  a  score  of  them,  inflicts 
much  greater  and  more  irreparable  damage 
upon  the  party  giving  than  upon  the  party 
receiving  the  blow.  Violence  invariably 
alienates  the  sympathy  of  the  public  no  mat- 
ter how  just  the  demands  of  the  men;  no 
matter  how  unreasonable  and  uncompromis- 
ing the  attitude  of  the  employer,  the  com- 
mission of  acts  of  violence  invariably  puts 
the  strikers  in  the  wrong.    In  the  long  run 


110  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

violence  acts  as  a  boomerang  and  defeats  its 
own  purpose."  1 

Even  if  there  are  not  available  other 
means  of  redress,  and  if  the  use  of  violence 
were  likely  to  prove  successful,  "the  disor- 
ders that  would  follow  any  recognition  of 
the  claim  that  violence  is  lawful  in  justifiable 
strikes  .  .  .  would  bring  about  a  condition 
of  veritable  anarchy."  And  as  the  condi- 
tions created  by  the  exactions  of  capital  or 
the  sufferings  of  labor  "are  not  of  sufficient 
gravity  to  justify  rebellion  against  existing 
political  institutions,"  so  the  "use  of  private 
violence  to  redress  the  grievances  of  labor 
cannot  be  too  severely  condemned."  2  Re- 
ligion as  well  as  reason  "teaches  the  laboring 
man  and  the  workman  .  .  .  never  to  employ 
violence  in  representing  his  own  cause,  nor 
to  engage  in  riot  and  disorder;  and  to  have 
nothing  to  do  with  men  of  evil  principles, 
who  work  upon  the  people  with  artful  prom- 
ises, and  raise  foolish  hopes  which  usually 
end  in  disaster  and  in  repentance  when  too 
late."  3 

1  Organized  Labor,  pp.  317-318.     Philadelphia,  1903. 

2  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  pp.  115,  116. 
8  Leo  XIII,  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE 
SYMPATHETIC  STRIKE 

a.     Against  the  Same  Employer 

MODERN  labor  problems  with 
their  many  conflicts  between  capi- 
tal and  labor  have  brought  into 
prominence  a  type  of  strike  known  as  the 
"sympathetic  strike."  This  kind  of  strike 
takes  place  "when  laborers,  without  per- 
sonal cause  against  their  employer,  suspend 
work  in  approval  and  support  of  other 
workers  who  are  striking."  x  Such  strike 
can  be  directed  against  the  employer  of  the 
original  strikers  or  against  some  other  em- 
ployer not  directly  concerned  with  the  orig- 
inal dispute.  As  there  is  no  personal  griev- 
ance, the  question  naturally  arises  whether 
such  a  strike  is  ever  justified  and  if  so  under 
what  circumstances  and  to  what  extent? 

^lusslein,  The  World  Problem,  p.  123. 
Ill 


112  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

It  is  obvious  that  such  a  strike  can  never 
be  justified  when  the  original  strike  is  un- 
just, for  that  would  be  cooperating  in  the 
injustice  of  the  strikers.  Nor  is  the  sympa- 
thetic strike  permitted  when  there  exists  be- 
tween the  employer  and  the  laborers  a  valid 
contract  which  obliges  them  to  continue 
working.  In  this  last  case  they  may,  if  the 
cause  of  the  strikers  be  a  just  one,  exert 
any  moral  influence  they  may  have  with  their 
employer  to  force  him  to  grant  the  demands 
of  the  strikers,  but  they  may  not,  to  perform 
a  duty  of  charity,  violate  an  obligation  of 
justice  which  the  valid  contract  imposes 
upon  them. 

But  on  the  supposition  that  no  obligation 
in  justice  binds  them  to  continue  working, 
are  they  ever  justified  in  striking  to  assist 
their  fellow-laborers  in  obtaining  their  just 
demands?  We  shall  consider  first  the  case 
where  the  employer  of  the  sympathetic  and 
original  strikers  is  one  and  the  same  person 
or  firm.  In  such  a  case  "when  a  sympathetic 
strike  affects  only  the  employer  concerned 
in  the  original  strike  it  will  sometimes  be, 
not  only  licit,  but  laudable."  1  Clearly  such 
a  course  could  only  be  justifiable  as  a  last 

1  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  117. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  113 

resort.  Not  only  would  reasons  of  propor- 
tionately greater  importance  and  gravity  be 
required  to  justify  such  a  strike,  but  it  is 
also  required  that  proportionately  greater 
efforts  be  exerted  to  prevent  it.  If  by  bring- 
ing moral  pressure  to  bear  they  could  force 
their  employer  to  grant  the  demands  of  the 
strikers,  reason  would  require  that  the  less 
drastic  means  be  employed.  A  threat  to 
strike  might  at  times  prove  sufficient,  par- 
ticularly when  coming  from  the  higher 
classed  skilled  workers  of  an  industry.  That 
failing,  a  sympathetic  strike  may  be  justi- 
fied when  there  is  a  well  grounded  hope  that 
such  action  will  be  of  considerable  material 
assistance  in  winning  the  demands  of  the 
strikers.  For  while  the  employer  has  a  right 
to  the  services  of  his  employees  as  long  as 
he  treats  them  justly,  even  if  there  be  no 
contract,  still  this  right  is  valid  "only  as 
long  as  he  does  not  use  the  advantage  gained 
from  their  services  for  unreasonable  ends."  * 
Now  in  the  case  under  consideration  the  con- 
tinuation at  work  of  the  skilled  employees 
becomes  a  means  of  assisting  their  employer 
in   his    course   of   injustice   towards   their 

*Cath.   Ency.,  Vol.   VIII,  Art.   Moral   Aspects  of  Labor 
Unions. 


114  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

fellow-laborers — the  unskilled  employees. 
Clearly  the  obligation  of  the  skilled  mechan- 
ic in  such  a  case  yields  to  the  claims  of  his 
weaker  brethren  who  are  being  subjected  to 
unjust  treatment  by  their  employer.  On  the 
principle  that  "righteous  interference  in  the 
cause  of  the  oppressed  is  justified"  x  a  disin- 
terested spectator  may  come  to  the  relief  of 
a  weak  man  who  is  being  harshly  treated  by 
a  stronger.  So  in  this  instance  the  sympa- 
thetic strike  is  justified,  particularly  in  view 
of  the  fact  that  by  remaining  at  work  they 
lend  material  cooperation  to  the  employer 
in  his  course  of  injustice.  Furthermore,  it 
often  happens  that  the  workers,  and  particu- 
larly organized  union  laborers,  are  united  by 
a  real  and  strong  bond  of  trade  interest,  as 
well  as  union  agreements  which  may  bind 
them  to  act  as  a  unit  in  enforcing  the  claims 
for  the  removal  of  injustice  of  any  particu- 
lar section  of  the  body  of  workers  of  the  dif- 
ferent trades  comprised  in  the  union.  In 
such  a  case  a  strike  of  all  the  employees  of  a 
particular  firm  or  employer  may  be  called  to 
enforce  the  claims  of  a  particular  section  of 
workers,  viz.,  the  unskilled  employees.  If 
the  cause  is  a  valid  one  "this  action  will 

1Husslein,  The  World  Problem,  p.  125. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  115 

usually  be  lawful  and  frequently  commend- 
able, for  it  is  becoming  more  and  more  evi- 
dent that  only  by  this  means  can  the  weaker 
laborers,  the  great  army  of  unskilled,  obtain 
adequate  protection."  1 

b.    Against  Different  Employers 

In  the  case  we  have  just  considered  the 
sympathetic  strike  was  against  the  offending 
employer  or  firm,  against  which  the  original 
strike  had  been  directed;  we  shall  now  con- 
sider an  entirely  different  situation.  The 
oppressed  workers  having  but  little  hope  of 
winning,  appeal  for  help  not  only  to  men  in 
different  branches  of  the  same  firm,  but  to 
laborers  of  an  entirely  different  firm,  which 
may  perhaps  be  a  heavy  buyer  of  the  prod- 
uct manufactured  by  the  original  firm. 
Again,  the  second  firm  may  have  been  fur- 
nishing the  raw  material  necessary  for  the 
operation  of  the  industry  in  which  the  strike 
has  been  called.  In  any  case  the  object  is 
to  bring  pressure  to  bear  indirectly  on  the 
employer,  who  is  guilty  of  unjust  treatment 
of  his  employees,  in  order  that  he  may  be 
forced  to  grant  their  demands.     Often  in 

1  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  117. 


116  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

actual  practice  such  sympathetic  strikes  are 
extended  to  several  firms.  The  question  is: 
Are  such  strikes  justifiable?  Where  a  con- 
tract or  some  other  grave  obligation  binds 
the  workers  to  continue  work  such  sympa- 
thetic strikes  are  never  justifiable.  On  the 
supposition  that  there  is  no  bond  between 
the  various  employers,  and  that  the  laborers 
have  no  grievance  against  their  own  employ- 
ers, such  strikes  even  where  the- e  exist  no 
valid  contracts  binding  the  laborers  to  con- 
tinue, will,  generally  speaking,  be  contrary 
to  both  justice  and  charity.1  By  such  a 
course  the  sympathetic  strikers,  without  a 
sufficiently  grave  reason,  inflict  very  great 
loss  on  innocent  employers,  who  seldom  if 
ever  have  it  in  their  power  to  grant  the  de- 
mands of  the  strikers.  Such  action  would 
constitute  an  unjust  interference  with 
their  employers'  right  to  pursue  the  advan- 
tages derived  from  the  prosecution  of  indus- 
try without  being  unreasonably  interfered 
with  by  others.  By  such  action  the  sympa- 
thetic strikers  often  cause  their  employers 
to  violate  their  contracts  and  subject  them 
to  many  other  inconveniences — loss  of  pos- 
sible contracts,  etc.    In  such  a  case,  as  the 

1Cf.  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism,  p.  113. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  117 

sympathetic  strikers  have  no  just  grievance 
against  their  employer,  "the  loss  inflicted  on 
the  employer  by  this  interruption  of  work 
will  in  itself  constitute  an  act  of  injustice."  * 
Furthermore,  charity  demands  that  the  wel- 
fare of  their  innocent  employer  be  consid- 
ered rather  than  that  of  the  employees  of 
another  firm.  "Propinquity  creates  for 
them  special  obligations,  not  merely  of 
charity  but  of  justice"  2  towards  their  own 
employer. 

It  might  happen,  however,  in  a  particular 
case,  that  charity  would  oblige  both  the 
laborers  and  the  employer  of  another  firm  to 
assist  the  strikers  in  their  attempt  to  secure 
justice  by  refraining  from  business  relations 
with  an  employer  who  is  guilty  of  grave  in- 
justice. This,  reason  will  surely  demand,  if 
they  can  do  so  without  suffering  any  serious 
inconvenience  themselves.  But  such  cases 
are,  according  to  the  opinion  of  most  au- 
thorities, rare.3 

While  we  should  not  seek  lightly  to  jus- 
tify any  extension  of  the  sympathetic  strike 
principle,  yet  it  would  seem  that  there  is 
greater  justification  for  this  second  type  of 

1  Ryan,  op.  cit.,  p.  113. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  111. 

3  Op.  cit.,  pp.  116-117. 


118  ,THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

sympathetic  strike  than  is  generally  con- 
ceded. Asa  basis  for  the  arguments  against 
this  kind  of  sympathetic  strike  it  is  generally 
supposed  that  the  various  employers  have 
little  or  no  interest  in  one  another,  other  than 
those  of  ordinary  business  relations,  and 
consequently  that  these  outside  firms  have 
nothing  to  do  directly  with  the  continuance 
of  the  injustice  that  the  employees  of  a  par- 
ticular firm  may  be  called  upon  to  suffer  as 
a  result  of  the  failure  of  their  strike  for  just 
conditions  of  employment.  In  this  moralists 
fail  to  consider  the  fact  that  very  few  of  the 
larger  industrial  corporations  are  really  in- 
dependent in  any  true  sense  of  the  word,  for 
besides  being  united  into  many  powerful 
combinations,  such  as  partnerships,  corpora- 
tions, trusts,  etc.,  of  various  kinds,  with  their 
related  and  interwoven  interests,  the  great 
majority  of  the  great  industrial  and  com- 
mercial corporations  of  this  country  have 
united  in  associations  such  as  the  "National 
Manufacturers  Association,"  the  "National 
Erectors  Association,"  etc.,  with  the  purpose 
of  assisting  one  another  financially,  as  well 
as  by  moral  and  economic  pressure  in  resist- 
ing the  demands  of  labor. 

Within  recent  years,  with  the  extension  of 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  119 

union  organization,  began  also  the  organiza- 
tion of  the  employers,  so  that  the  American 
Federation  of  Labor  now  faces  the  National 
Manufacturers  Association.  "As  long  as 
the  union  alone  was  organized  it  succeeded. 
With  the  organization  of  the  employer,  the 
unions'  efforts  to  secure  an  increase  in  the 
proportion  of  the  products  of  industry  have 
usually  been  frustrated.  In  many  cases  a 
rise  in  the  rate  of  wages  is  at  once  offset  by 
a  corresponding  increase  in  the  price  of  the 
commodity.  In  other  cases  the  unions  were 
overwhelmed  by  a  great  array  of  funds  sup- 
plied by  manufacturers  all  through  the  coun- 
try. In  case  the  wages  are  increased  and 
the  prices  raised,  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
people  of  the  country  are  forced  to  pay  the 
bill.  When  force  is  resorted  to,  the  unions 
suffer.  It  is  during  the  last  twenty  years 
that  the  National  Manufacturers  Associa- 
tion, the  Citizens  Industrial  Alliance,  and 
the  employers'  associations  in  all  sections  of 
the  country  generally  have  been  organized 
and  put  on  a  firm  basis.  The  history  of 
unionism  during  these  decades  has  been  a 
long  succession  of  failures.  Lost  strikes, 
closed  shops  opened,  injunctions  of  the  most 
sweeping  character,  adverse  court  decisions, 


120  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

and  adverse  legislative  action  have  all  helped 
to  curtail  union  activity."  * 

Realizing  the  immense  value  of  the  moral 
pressure  wielded  by  public  opinion  in  decid- 
ing the  success  or  failure  of  a  strike,  "the 
National  Manufacturers  Association,  repre- 
senting most  of  the  prominent  manufactur- 
ing interests  in  the  United  States,"  decided 
to  enter  upon  a  plan  of  campaign  with  a 
view  of  winning  public  opinion  to  their  side 
in  their  fight  against  the  demands  of  labor. 
Accordingly  "in  1907  a  fund  of  a  million  and 
a  half  dollars  was  agreed  upon  by  the  Asso- 
ciation as  a  requisite  amount  for  expenditure 
during  the  next  three  years  in  'education' 
of  the  public  to  see  the  detrimental  results 
of  trade-unionism."  2  "The  National  Asso- 
ciation of  Merchant  Tailors  at  their  annual 
convention  held  recently  at  Atlantic  City, 
N.  J.,  passed  a  resolution  to  raise  a  fund 
of  $500,000.00  for  the  purpose  of  combating 
the  closed  shop  in  the  trade."  3 

Nor  are  they  always  scrupulous  as  to  the 
methods  employed  in  carrying  on  their  or- 
ganized  campaign   against   labor.    During 

iXearimr,  Social  Adjust.,  pp.  348-49.     N.  Y.,  1916. 

2  Op.  cit.,  p.  349. 

3  Central  Blatt  and  Social  Justice,  Feb.,  1920,  p.  353. 


THE  ArORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  121 

the  strike  against  the  United  States  Steel 
Corporation  [1919],  which  the  employees 
lost,  a  propaganda  "deliberately  fostered  by 
the  bourbon  elements  among  the  employing 
classes  was  carried  on  by  the  metropolitan 
dailies  with  a  view  to  discredit  the  cause  of 
labor  and  of  progressive  social  and  indus- 
trial movements  generally,"  and  although 
the  position  of  the  officials  of  the  Steel  Cor- 
poration was  indefensible  because  it  in- 
cluded a  refusal  to  treat  with  the  representa- 
tives of  the  union  or  any  labor  union,  "yet 
the  metropolitan  dailies  either  defended  the 
attitude  of  Mr.  Gary  (the  head  of  the  Steel 
Corporation)  or  pasrsed  it  over  in  complete 
silence,"  while  they  "deliberately  and  con- 
sistently sought  to  create  the  impression  that 
it  (the  strike)  was  intended  as  the  first  step 
toward  a  revolution."  In  this  way  "the 
opinion  of  probably  seven-tenths  of  the  dis- 
interested public  has  been  determined  by  the 
dishonest  tactics  and  false  statements  of  the 
metropolitan  press."  1  Similar  "propaganda 
was  carried  on  by  many  daily  papers  in  rela- 
tion to  the  strike  in  the  coal  fields,"  2  and  in 
this  way  the  great  force  of  public  opinion 

1  Edit.  The  Cath.  ©har.  Rev.,  Dec,  1919,  pp.  292-93. 
3  Op.  eit. 


122  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

was  unjustly  turned  against  the  strikers. 

In  view  of  these  facts  it  would  seem  that 
many  of  the  arguments  adduced  against  any 
extension  of  the  use  of  the  sympathetic  strike 
are  not  so  well  founded  as  might  be  sup- 
posed. Very  few  of  the  great  industrial 
corporations  of  this  country  can  be  classed 
as  "innocent"  and  "disinterested"  parties  in 
relation  to  a  strike  that  may  be  in  progress 
in  some  particular  branch  of  industry. 

While  the  facts  above  recorded  indicate 
that  "the  employers  all  over  the  country 
joined  in  defending  the  one  company  against 
which  the  strike  was  directed,"  x  it  can  hardly 
be  true  that  the  various  other  companies, 
against  which  a  sympathetic  strike  may  be 
called,  can  be  entirely  exonerated  from  par- 
ticipation in  the  grave  injustice  to  which  we 
suppose  the  original  strikers  are  subjected. 
It  would  seem,  therefore,  considering  the 
united  front  presented  by  the  great  indus- 
trial concerns  of  this  country  and  especially 
in  view  of  the  fact  of  the  press  campaign 
conducted  so  vigorously  and  with  such  little 
regard  for  truth  against  labor,  that,  unless 
allowance  is  made  for  some  considerable  ex- 
tension of  the  principle  of  sympathetic  strike 

1  Nearing,  Social  Adjust.,  p.  349. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE   123 

assistance,  the  laboring  class  is  bereft,  at 
least  as  long  as  the  State  fails  to  secure  just 
treatment  to  labor,  of  the  adequate  means  of 
protection  against  the  grave  injustices  to 
which  it  is  at  present  in  many  instances  sub- 
jected and  which  capital  seeks  to  perpetu- 
ate. 

The  law  of  proportion  will  demand,  how- 
ever, in  such  cases  that,  before  rendering 
sympathetic  assistance  more  than  ordinary 
assurance  as  to  the  likelihood  of  a  successful 
outcome  be  had,  because  as  pointed  out  by 
Moore,  so  far  at  least  "strikes  in  sympathy 
with  strikers  have  been  notoriously  fail- 
ures,^ *  and  also  because  of  the  greater  dis- 
turbance that  such  strikes  are  likely  to  cause. 

2.      THE  GENERAL  STRIEJE 

a.     The  General  Sympathetic  Strike 

ALTHOUGH  it  might  be  possible  to 
justify  some  considerable  exten- 
sion of  the  sympathetic  strike  in  ex- 
treme cases,  it  will  seldom  happen  that  a 
general  extension  of  the  principle  of  the 
sympathetic  strike  will  be  warranted.   The 

xThe  Law  of  Wages,  p.  122. 


124  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

evils  to  be  feared  from  such  a  general  strike 
are  beyond  calculation,  so  that  the  good 
to  be  obtained  would  have  to  be  no  less  great 
in  proportion,  a  condition  that  would 
seldom  if  ever  be  realized.  Generally  the 
harm  inflicted  upon  countless  helpless  and 
innocent  sufferers  as  well  as  the  many  moral 
disorders  which  such  a  strike  would  en- 
tail are  likely  to  be  out  of  all  proportion  to 
the  good  that  would  result.  Besides,  a 
general  sympathetic  strike  would  almost  cer- 
tainly involve  a  violation  of  some  just  con- 
tracts, and,  as  we  have  seen  above,  no  strike 
can  be  morally  countenanced  which  violates 
a  just  contract  freely  entered  into  by  both 
parties  and  where  its  terms  are  faithfully 
carried  out  by  the  employer.  Furthermore, 
it  would  be  most  unreasonable  to  demand 
that  the  great  body  of  employers  and  the 
general  public  be  compelled  to  suffer  such 
great  hardships  and  injuries  as  such  a  strike 
would  surely  cause,  in  order  that  an  offend- 
ing employer  may  be  coerced  into  reasonable 
treatment  of  a  small  section  of  the  com- 
munity. It  would  be  a  remedy  out  of  all 
proportion #to  the  cure.  As  Dr.  Hall  points 
out,  "it  is  an  extension  of  injuries  rather 
than  of  good.    The  point  of  diminishing  re- 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  125 

turns  is  quickly  reached,"  and  well  organized 
labor  unions  are  beginning  to  realize  the  fact 
that  "beyond  a  certain  point  sympathetic 
assistance  in  the  form  of  strikes  ceases  to 

assist."  1 

In  view  of  these  facts,  even  though  the 
cause  of  the  original  strike  be  just  and  the 
sympathetic  strikes  involve  no  violation  of 
contracts,  it  is  reasonable  to  conclude  that 
"while  we  cannot  be  certain  that  a  general 
strike  is  never  justified,  there  is  against  it 
an  overwhelming  presumption."  2  So  that 
while  it  may  be  true  that  "wholesale  adop- 
tion of  the  sympathetic  strike  principle  is 
wrong,"  it  would  seem  to  be  going  too  far, 
as  does  Dr.  Cronin,  to  maintain  that  it 
could  "never  be  justified  under  any  circum- 
stances." 3 

b.     Syndicalism 

IN  order  to  put  an  immediate  end  to  the 
grievances    of   labor   the    extreme    or 
radical  wing  of  the  socialistic  element 
advocate   a  policy   known   as   syndicalism, 

1Hall,   Sympathetic    Strikes   and    Sympathetic    Lockouts, 

P'2  Cath.  Ency.,  Art.  Moral  Aspects  of  Labor  Unions,  Vol. 
VIII,  p.  726. 

*  The  Science  of  Ethics,  p.  3G8. 


126  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

"which  has  for  its  object  the  destruction  by 
force  of  existing  organization  and  the  trans- 
fer of  industrial  capital  from  its  present 
possessor  to  syndicalists."  *  Believing  that 
there  is  an  irreconcilable  conflict  between  the 
"classes"  which  constitute  present-day  so- 
ciety, they  hold  that  only  by  a  complete 
revolution  of  the  industrial  organization  can 
justice  and  peace  be  brought  about.  They 
consequently  "scorn  reform  or  any  compro- 
mises." The  means  by  which  their  object  is 
to  be  secured  is  the  general  strike.  Strikes 
are  to  be  extended  from  one  trade  to  another 
until  production  is  arrested  all  over  the 
whole  country.  The  final  aim  of  the  syndi- 
calists, as  adopted  by  the  joint  congress  of 
trade  unionists  and  socialists  held  at  Nantes 
is  to  make  the  general  strike  international 
and  so  bring  about  a  cataclysm  in  which  they 
see,  or  think  they  see,  a  rebirth  of  society  and 
the  emancipation  of  labor.2 

Syndicalism  in  this  country  is  represented 
chiefly  by  the  Syndicalist  League  of  North 
America  which  "organized  in  New  York 
City  in  October,  1912,  the  Syndicalist  Edu- 

1  Grant,  Fair  Play  for  the  Workers,  p.  272.     New  York, 
1919. 
2Cf.  Clay,  Syndicalism  and  Labor,  pp.  3,  seq. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  127 

cational  League."  *    This,  we  are  informed, 
"is  an  organization  of  active  propagandists 
formed  for  the  purpose  of  spreading  the 
idea  of  syndicalism,  direct  action  and  the 
general  strike  among  the  organized  and  un- 
organized   workers    of    America." 2      The 
Syndicalist  League  of  North  America  is, 
however,  a  propaganda  body  rather  than  a 
labor  organization.     The  Industrial  Work- 
ers of  the  World,  although  generally  re- 
garded as  Syndicalists,  are  not  really  such. 
It  was  in  opposition  to  the  I.  W.  W.  that 
the  Syndicalist  League  was  established.  By 
association  with   French    Syndicalists,   the 
I.  W.  W.  organization  has  adopted  "certain 
characteristic  strike  tactics,  a  set  of  foggy 
philosophical   concepts   about  the   General 
Strike,  the  militant  minority,  etc.     To  this 
extent  the  I.  W.  W.  is  a  syndicalist  union."  3 
The  first  attempt  made  by  the  I.  W.  W.  to 
put  into  operation  the  syndicalist  policy  of 
a  general  strike  took  place  in  connection 
with  the   MacNamara   trial   in   1911.    On 
May  2,  1911,  the  Industrial  Worker  car- 

1  Brissenden,  Paul  Frederick,  The  I.  W.  W.,  A  Study  of 
Amer.  Syn.,  p.  274. 

'Mother  Earth,  Nov.,  1912,  Vol.  VII,  p.  307;  Brissenden, 
op.  cit.,  p.  275. 

3  Brissenden,  op.  eit.,  pp.  273-274. 


128  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

ried  in  capitals  on  its  front  page  the  follow- 
ing: "Official  I.  W.  W.  Proclamation. 
Arouse!  Prepare  to  Defend  Your  Class. 
A  general  strike  in  all  industries  must  be 
the  answer  of  the  workers  to  the  challenge 
of  the  Master!  Tie  up  all  industries!  Tie 
up  all  production!  Eternal  vigilance  is  the 
price  of  liberty."  * 

Modern  up-to-date  syndicalism  or  soviet- 
ism  advocates  the  broadening  and  deepening 
of  strikes  so  as  to  make  them  "general  and 
militant."  Through  this  means  not  only  is 
"redress  of  economic  wrongs"  to  be  secured 
but  even  "the  Government  is  to  be  conquered 
and  destroyed."  2 

With  regard  to  the  morality  of  such 
strikes  it  may  be  said  "obviously  such  strikes 
are  wholly  immoral,  wholly  unjust."  3  It 
has  been  shown  above  that  any  strike  which 
has  for  its  end  the  destruction  or  abolition  of 
authority  or  of  the  institution  of  private 
property  must  be  condemned  as  immoral. 
No  condition  can  ever  arise  that  will  justify 
resorting  to  such  extreme  and  unusual 
measures.     Even  if  we  were  certain  that 

1  Reprinted  in  Solidarity,  May  20,  1911,  p.  4.     (Brissen- 
den,  op.  cit.,  p.  275.) 

*  Corrfcniinist  Manifesto,  p.  10,  Wash.  Post,  Jan.  25,  1920. 
3Cronin,  The  Science  of  Ethics,  Vol.  II,  p.  310. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  129 

the  general  condition  of  labor  would  be  im- 
proved beyond  the  rosiest  dreams  of  the 
visionary  radicalist  such  methods  could  never 
be  justified.  Seldom,  if  ever,  even  where 
the  cause  of  the  original  strikers  is  grave 
and  just,  and  where  only  licit  means  are 
used,  will  the  general  sympathetic  strike  be 
justified.  Where  both  the  end  and  the 
means  are  intrinsically  immoral  a  strike  can 
never  find  justification.  Such  we  have  seen 
is  the  general  character  of  the  strike  advo- 
cated by  the  syndicalists. 

c.    The  Political  Strike,  Direct  Action 

ANEW  type  of  general  strike  known 
as  the  "political  strike"  has  recently 
come  to  the  fore.  Like  syndical- 
ism, it  is  directed  against  the  authorities  or 
Government  of  the  country.  Its  purpose, 
however,  is  not  the  destruction  of  authority, 
but  by  means  of  a  strike  to  force  the  adop- 
tion by  the  government  of  a.  certain  politi- 
cal program  of  interest  to  the  laborers.  The 
threatened  general  strikes  of  the  British  coal 
miners  and  of  the  United*  States  railway  em- 
ployees in  March,  1920,  afford  instances  of 
this  type  of  strike.    The  question  arises,  are 


130  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

the  railroad  employees  justified  in  attempt- 
ing to  enforce  their  demands  for  nationalism 
of  the  railroads  of  a  country  by  means  of  a 
strike?  Would  it  ever  be  justifiable  for  a 
certain  section  of  the  country  such  as  the 
coal  miners  to  endeavor  to  compel  the  Gov- 
ernment to  adopt  a  certain  political  program 
or  policy  by  means  of  a  strike  or  by  "direct 
action,"  as  it  is  called? 

On  March  10,  1920,  the  British  "National 
Conference  of  Coal  Miners  declared  in  favor 
of  a  general  strike  as  a  means  of  enforc- 
ing the  demand  for  nationalization  of  the 
mines."  *  However,  "the  trade  union  con- 
gress, which  has  a  membership  of  5,000,000, 
of  which  700,000  are  miners,  on  March  11, 
voted  by  a  large  majority  (3,870,000  against 
1,050,000)  to  reject  the  coal  miners'  decision 
for  direct  action  as  a  means  of  forcing  the 
Government  to  nationalize  the  coal  mines."  2 
Could  such  a  strike,  if  called,  be  justified? 

A  fundamental  consideration,  that  any 
strike  may  be  justified,  is  that  the  cause 
espoused  be  a  just  one.  In  the  case  in  ques- 
tion have  the  railroad  employees  a  just 
grievance  against  the  Government  of  the 

1  Washington  Times,  March  10. 

2  Op.  cit.,  March  11. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  131 

country?     Were  the  cause  of  the  strike  a 
demand  for  a  higher  wage  it  would  seem  that 
such  claim  might  be  just,  for  according  to 
the  Monthly  Labor  Review,  the  organ  of  the 
U.  S.  Department  of  Labor,  out  of  a  total 
of    1,894,287    railroad    employees    716,830 
were  being  paid  a  monthly  wage  of  $95.13  or 
less,    equivalent    to    an    annual    salary    of 
$1,141.56,  which  is  certainly  quite  consider- 
ably below  a  living  wage,  and  319,491  re- 
ceived $78.68,  or  less  than  $932.16  annually.1 
But  the  cause  of  the  threatened  railway 
strike  was  not  a  question  of  wages,  at  least 
not  directly.    It  was  a  question  of  national 
policy  which  the  railroad  employees  want 
the  Government  to  adopt — the  nationaliza- 
tion of  the  railroads  of  the  country.    Indi- 
rectly it  might,  it  is  true,  affect  them,  as  they 
feared  that  they  might  be  less  fairly  treated 
were  the  roads  returned  to  private  control. 
But  the  real  cause  is  a  question  of  public 
policy  which  is  of  common  interest  to  the 
whole  country,  and  it  being  such  "no  par- 
ticular section  of  the  community  has  a  real 
grievance,  such  as  could  warrant  a  strike  if 
it  fails  to  bring  the  nation  at  large  round 
to  its  point  of  view,  or  because  the  accredited 

*  Cf.  Monthly  Labor  Rev.,  Dec.,  1919,  p.  235. 


132  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

representatives  of  the  nation  in  the  consti- 
tutional exercise  of  their  authority  refuse  to 
accept  its  suggestion."  *  The  public  policy 
of  a  nation  is  the  general  welfare  of  the  coun- 
try, and  the  interests  of  all  the  citizens  as  a 
whole,  and  not  the  particular  interests  of  any 
section  of  the  country,  especially  when  these 
may  seem  to  clash  with  the  larger  interests 
of  the  whole  country.  Were  it  permissible 
for  a  section  of  the  community  to  veto  the 
actions  of  the  regularly  constituted  govern- 
ing body  by  such  a  process  as  a  railroad 
strike  or  a  strike  in  any  of  the  great  public 
utilities,  the  demoralization  of  the  Govern- 
ment would  result.  Such  action  would  be 
subversive  of  all  law  and  order.  It  would  be 
subordinating  the  welfare  of  the  interests  of 
the  whole  country  to  that  of  a  section. 
Under  such  a  policy  the  state  must  soon  go 
to  pieces  and  orderly  government  give  way 
to  chaos.  Such  would  be  the  inevitable  re- 
sult were  any  or  every  combination  of  indi- 
viduals allowed  to  bring  the  industry  of  a 
country  to  a  standstill  in  order  to  force  Con- 
gress or  the  country  at  large  to  its  policy  of 
Government  ownership  of  the  railroads. 
It  is  possible,  however,  to  conceive  in- 

1  Irish  Theol.  Quart.,  Oct.,  19*19,  Vol.  XIV,  p.  370. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  133 

stances  where  the  workers  or  a  section  of 
the  inhabitants  of  a  nation  would  have  a 
real  grievance  against  the  Government,  viz., 
if  the  nation's  representatives  undertook  to 
abolish  the  Catholic  parochial  school  system 
or  to  disfranchise  all  members  of  the  Ameri- 
can Federation  of  Labor.  Here  the  strict 
rights  of  the  affected  would  be  invaded,  and 
this  would  undoubtedly  constitute  a  genuine 
grievance.  So  it  is  possible  to  have  in  the 
political  order  a  grievance  parallel  to  that 
which  constitutes  a  just  cause  for  a  strike 
in  the  industrial  order.  But  a  labor  union 
or  body  of  workers  will  not  have  such  a 
grievance  simply  because  the  Government 
refuses  to  adopt  the  political  views  which 
appear  most  beneficial  to  their  interests. 
However,  should  the  Government  violate 
their  rights  as  human  beings  or  discriminate 
unjustly  on  a  point  of  public  policy  or  by 
special  legislation,  against  the  working  class 
as  a  whole  or  against  a  particular  section  or 
trade  union,  then  their  grievance  would  be 
a  just  one.  But  even  here  there  could 
hardly,  if  ever,  be  justification  for  strike  ac- 
tion, in  as  much  as  there  are  less  drastic 
methods  available  for  redressing  such  griev- 
ances.    Where  the  grievance  is  political  in 


134  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

character,  the  obvious  remedy  is  the  exercise 
of  the  political  franchise.  "Labor's  oppor- 
tunity, as  its  principal  leaders  realize,  lies  in 
gaining  control  of  the  Government  by  or- 
derly constitutional  processes  and  through 
the  medium  of  existing  parties."  1  Where 
such  methods  fail  it  is  most  unlikely  that  a 
strike  would  be  any  more  successful.  To 
ensure  real  hope  of  success  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  throw  the  whole  nation  into  a  state 
of  great  distress  and  disorder.  So  it  would 
seem  certain  that  no  grievance  on  the  part 
of  a  section  of  the  community  could  jus- 
tify an  action  which  would  have  such 
dire  results  for  the  whole  community.  "Be- 
cause of  the  great  danger,"  says  Fr.  Koch, 
S.J.,  a  leading  economic  authority  in  Ger- 
many, referring  to  the  political  strike, 
"which  threatens  the  entire  people,  as  well 
as  the  state  itself,  this  form  of  strike  appears 
to  be  altogether  objectionable  from  the 
standpoint  of  morality."  2  It  would  seem, 
therefore,  that  the  political  strike  would  sel- 
dom, if  ever,  be  justifiable.  But  as  there 
can  arise  a  condition  such  as  might  justify 
even  a  revolution  against  the  abuse  of  au- 

1  Washington  Post,  Feb.  25,  p.  1,  col.  1. 

1  Quoted  in  The  World  Problem,  Husslein,  p.  128. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  135 

thority  by  those  in  whose  hands  the  welfare 
and  government  of  the  country  have  been 
entrusted,  so  in  this,  and  even  in  a  somewhat 
lesser  grave  condition  of  affairs,  a  political 
strike  might  be  fully  justified,1  provided 
there  are  valid  reasons  to  believe  that 
through  such  measures  the  grave  situation 
would  be  remedied. 

*Cf.     Macksey,     Argumenta     Sociologica,     pp.     150-151. 
Rome,  1918. 


VI 

THE  MORALITY  OF   STATE 

ACTION  IN  RELATION  TO 

STRIKE  PREVENTION 

NATURE  AND  FUNCTION  OF  STATE  AUTHORITY 

A  MATTER  of  great  importance  in 
considering  strikes  is  the  question 
of  their  prevention,  particularly  the 
duty  of  the  State  in  this  regard;  whether 
the  State  may  prohibit  them  altogether,  or 
how  far  it  may  go  in  this  direction. 

Civil  society  exists  for  the  sake  of  those 
composing  it.  The  promotion  of  the  com- 
mon weal  is  the  end  of  its  existence.  "It 
is  the  province  of  the  commonwealth  to  con- 
sult for  the  common  good."  1  Hence  the 
role  of  public  authority  in  any  state  or  so- 
ciety is  none  other  than  to  direct  it  towards 
its  end.  "The  first  duty,  therefore,  of  the 
rulers  of  the  State,"  says  the  Encyclical, 

'Leo  XIII.     On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 
136 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  137 

"should  be  to  make  sure  that  the  laws  and 
institutions,  the  general  character  and  ad- 
ministration of  the  commonwealth,  shall  be 
such  as  to  produce  of  themselves  public  well- 
being  and  private  prosperity."  In  order 
that  this  end  be  secured  the  Government 
must  "act  with  strict  justice,  with  that  jus- 
tice which  is  called  in  the  Schools  distribu- 
tive, towards  each  class."  All  have  sacred 
claims,  the  consideration  of  which  the  Gov- 
ernment is  bound  to  keep  in  mind  in  the  ful- 
fillment of  its  duty,  for  "it  would  be  most 
irrational  to  neglect  one  portion  of  the  citi- 
zens and  favor  another."  * 

The  laborer  forms  an  integral  part  of  the 
living  organism  of  society.  He  has,  there- 
fore, social  rights  the  defence  of  which  con- 
stitute a  part  of  the  State's  function.  The 
laboring  class  undoubtedly  constitute  by  far 
the  greatest  element  within  the  common- 
wealth, the  welfare  of  which  it  is  the  Gov- 
ernment's duty  to  promote.  Industrially 
the  prosperity  of  the  entire  community  is  in- 
separably and  vitally  connected  with  his 
daily  toil.  "It  may  be  truly  said  that  it  is 
only  by  the  labor  of  the  working-man  that 

1  Op.  cit. 


138  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

States  grow  rich."  *  The  public  adminis- 
tration is,  therefore,  under  an  obligation  not 
merely  of  charity  but  of  strict  justice  to  pro- 
vide for  the  welfare  of  its  laboring  classes 
and  it  is  the  duty  of  every  Government  duly 
and  solicitously  "to  provide  for  the  welfare 
and  comfort  of  the  working  people"  so  that 
"they  who  contribute  so  largely  to  the  advan- 
tage of  the  community  may  share  in  the 
benefits  they  create."  2 

The  Governments  of  the  various  nations 
have  not  always  been  scrupulously  exact  in 
the  performance  of  this  sacred  duty.  The 
result  has  been  that  the  laboring  class — the 
great  bulk  of  the  community — has  at  times, 
and  particularly  within  the  last  two  centu- 
ries, suffered  greatly  because  of  this  neglect. 
The  political  "laissez-faire"  policy,  which 
removed  from  the  economically  weaker  ele- 
ment of  society  all  possible  hope  of  redress 
or  assistance  from  the  State,  has,  as  well  as 
the  later  present  century  policy,  subjected 
the  laboring  classes  to  grave  injustices. 
When  the  need  of  the  State  interference  in 
the  economic  field  forced  itself  at  last  upon 
the   Governments,   the   fatal   mistake   was 

'Leo  XIII.     On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 
2  Op.  cit. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  139 

made  of  identifying  the  existence  and  inter- 
ests of  large  fortunes  with  the  industrial 
prosperity  of  the  country.  It  was  wrongly 
believed  that  the  duty  of  the  State  demanded 
that  these  be  safeguarded  at  all  hazard,  a 
policy  which  often  meant  the  sacrifice  of  the 
economic  welfare  of  the  masses  to  the  inter- 
est of  the  already  economically  powerful 
few.  All  recognize  nowadays  that  the  State 
authorities  can  no  longer  maintain  a  pas- 
sive attitude  towards  the  struggles  and 
differences  that  have  arisen  between  labor- 
ers and  employers.  This  principle  has  been 
laid  down  by  Pope  Leo  XIII  in  the  follow- 
ing terms,  "Whenever  the  general  interest 
of  any  particular  class  suffers  or  is  threat- 
ened with  evils  which  can  in  no  other  way  be 
met,  the  public  authority  must  step  in  to 
meet  them."  *  It  is  clearly,  then,  the  State's 
duty  to  take  a  hand  in  abolishing  industrial 
strife  which  is  proving  so  disastrous  to  so- 
ciety. 

How  shall  this  best  be  accomplished? 
There  is  considerable  divergence  of  opinion 
on  this  very  important  duty.  Some  would 
have  the  State  repress  all  industrial  strife  by 
direct  legislation.     Others  would  find  the 

1  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


140  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

solution  in  compulsory  arbitration,  while 
many  claim  that  the  question  can  be  solved 
best  indirectly  by  a  combination  of  State  and 
private  effort,  which,  to  be  effective,  must 
go  back  of  the  industrial  strife  and  strike  at 
and  remove  the  causes  operating  in  the  in- 
dustrial field  which  produce  present-day  in- 
dustrial dissension. 

1.      GENERAL  LEGAL  PROHIBITION 

HOW  far  may  the  State  go  in  pro- 
hibiting strikes?  The  State  may 
always  and  should  prohibit  all 
strikes  which  are  immoral  in  se.  There  can 
be  no  question  as  to  the  State's  right  to  pro- 
hibit all  strikes  the  direct  aim  of  which  is  the 
destruction  of  all  authority  or  those  which 
certainly  involve  a  grave  violation  of  the 
sacred  rights  of  others.  Such  strikes  as  those 
of  the  Syndicalists,  which  threaten  the  de- 
struction of  the  social  order,  are  to  be  con- 
demned and  should  be  prohibited  by  law.1 
Not  only  may  such  strikes  be  prohibited,  but 
it  might  happen  that  under  certain  circum- 
stances industrial  disturbances  of  any  kind 
would  constitute  such  a  grave  menace  to  the 

1  Cf .  Antoine,  op.  cit.,  p.  465. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  14-1 

welfare  of  society  or  the  nation  as  to  justify 
the  prohibition  of  all  strikes  for  a  time. 
Such  a  grave  situation  is  very  possible  dur- 
ing a  serious  war,  when  there  could  be  no 
question  of  the  State's  right  to  prohibit  in- 
dustrial strife  for  the  safety  and  promotion 
of  higher  interests.  "For  wartime  condi- 
tions abnormal  legislation  is  required."  * 

Even  under  normal  conditions  it  might  be- 
come the  duty  of  the  State  to  prohibit  a  par- 
ticular strike,  or  even  all  strikes  in  a  certain 
industry,  as  a  part  of  its  duty  in  safeguard- 
ing the  higher  rights  of  society  against  vio- 
lation. Such  a  situation  might  arise  when 
the  interruption  of  the  work,  brought  about 
by  the  strike,  very  seriously  interferes  with 
the  public  good,  as  the  strike  of  railroad 
employees  and  others  engaged  in  public 
utilities,  public  officials,  police,  etc.,  or  those 
entrusted  in  the  provisioning  of  a  city. 
Clearly  in  such  cases  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  do  all  that  lies  within  its  power,  at 
all  times,  to  avert  the  disastrous  conse- 
quences of  a  strike,  for  it  has  the  obligation, 
as  well  as  the  authority,  to  safeguard  the 
common  good.  In  fact,  "the  conservation 
of  the  community  and  all  its  parts  is  so  em- 

1  Husslein,  The  World  Problem,  p.  14. 


142  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

phatically  the  business  of  the  supreme  power 
that  the  safety  of  the  commonwealth  is  not 
only  the  first  law  but  it  is  the  Government's 
whole  reason  of  existence." 1  However, 
even  in  these  cases  the  State  will  clearly  fail 
in  its  duty  if  it  prohibit  strikes  without  mak- 
ing any  provision  whereby  the  sacred  rights 
of  the  laborers  to  a  decent  and  just  wage 
will  be  safeguarded.  If  the  State,  in  these 
cases,  by  prohibiting  strikes,  guarantees  the 
inviolability  of  the  employers'  property  and 
the  general  public  from  injury  and  at  the 
same  time  "allows  the  owners  of  such  indus- 
try to  keep  the  wages  of  the  laborers  below 
the  standard  of  a  living  wage,  it  is  mani- 
festly doing  but  half  its  duty." 2  Fr. 
Antoine  holds  that  if  the  State  does  forbid 
all  strikes  which  interfere  with  the  public 
service,  such  as  railroad  strikes,  etc.,  "the 
State  then  owes  the  workers  some  compen- 
sation for  the  taking  away  of  their  rights." 
He  suggests  that,  as  a  means  of  securing 
justice  for  the  workers,  the  State  establish  a 
board  of  arbitration,  "the  decisions  of  which 
should  be  obligatory  on  both  parties."  3    It 

1  Leo  XIII.    On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 
2W.  Moran,  Irish  Theol.  Quart,  Vol.  XIV,  April,  1919, 
p.  105. 
3Economie  Soeiale,  p.  465. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  143 

is  questionable  if  compulsory  arbitration 
would  prove  an  effective  method  of  settling 
industrial  difficulties.  The  experience  of 
Australia,  and  other  countries  where  such 
methods  have  been  tried,  gives  us  no  such 
assurance.  Unless  the  State  undertakes  by 
legislation  to  secure  to  the  workers  their 
right  to  a  living  wage  and  reasonable  condi- 
tions of  work,  it  is  to  be  feared  that  any 
such  State  action  might  result  in  disastrous 
consequences.  Even  with  such  provision  it 
is  doubtful  whether  compulsory  arbitration 
would  prove  effective  in  settling  all  difficul- 
ties. 

Owing  to  the  fact  that  uninterrupted  ser- 
vices in  the  great  public  and  quasi-public 
services  are  immediately  and  absolutely 
necessary  for  the  peace  and  well-being  of 
the  whole  community,  a  greater  responsi- 
bility undoubtedly  rests  on  the  employees  of 
such  industries.  More  than  ordinary  care 
and  deliberation  are  incumbent  on  this  class 
of  laborers  before  they  can  be  justified  in 
striking.  This  being  the  case  there  can  be 
no  question  but  they  "have  a  right  to  be  com- 
pensated for  the  extra  difficulties  which  the 
nature  of  the  work  places  in  the  way  of  the 


144  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

prosecution  of  their  rights."  1  As  it  is  the 
duty  of  the  State  to  provide  for  the  general 
good,  and  as  the  just  and  generous  treat- 
ment of  the  employees  in  public  services  is 
very  intimately  connected  with  the  general 
welfare  of  society,  it  would  seem  that  the 
State  is  bound  to  provide  the  fullest  machin- 
ery for  permanently  and  effectively  remov- 
ing the  cause  of  strife  in  such  services.  Un- 
less the  State  does  this  it  is  hard  to  see  how 
it  can  be  justified  in  taking  away  from  the 
employees  the  ordinaiy  means  of  self- 
defence  against  injustice. 

In  all  cases  the  State  has  the  right  and 
duty  to  make  use  of  its  authority  where  dis- 
order, intimidation,  violence,  or  riot  super- 
vene, not  indeed  to  put  an  end  to  the  strike 
unless  that  be  really  necessary  to  prevent 
disastrous  consequences,  but  to  suppress  the 
disorder.  These  are  not  essential  to  the 
strike.  "When,  however,  the  strikers  make 
use  of  physical  violence  this  must  be  pru- 
dently put  down  by  the  'force  majeure'  of 
the  State."  2  "The  State  has  the  right  to 
intervene  to  repress  and  punish  the  abuses 
and  violence  of  the  strike,"  3  although  on 

1  McKenna,  The  Church  and  Labor,  p.  101. 
8  Parkinson,  op.  cit.,  p.  132. 
s  Antoine,  op.  cit.,  p.  £65. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  145 

that  account  alone  it  has  not  the  right  to 
prohibit  the  strike  itself.  How  far  the  State 
may  go  will  be  determined  by  the  nature 
and  particular  circumstances  of  each  indi- 
vidual strike.  "Should  there  be  imminent 
danger  of  disturbance  to  the  public  peace"  it 
is  quite  "right  to  call  in  the  help  of  the  au- 
thority of  the  law."  The  action  of  the  State 
in  such  cases  "must  be  determined  by  the 
nature  of  the  occasion  that  calls  for  such  in- 
terference." *  If  the  use  of  violence  can  be 
controlled  or  prevented  without  interfering 
with  the  laborers'  right  to  enforce  their  de- 
mands by  reason  of  the  strike,  then  this  is 
obviously  the  limit  of  the  State's  jurisdiction 
in  the  matter.  Should  the  use  of  violence, 
however,  be  so  general  that  strikes  become 
a  real  menace  to  society,  the  State  has  the 
right  to  forbid  them  by  law,  for  the  State 
has  the  right  and  duty  to  see  that  the  rights 
and  common  welfare  of  society  are  safe- 
guarded. "Should  strikes  degenerate  into 
an  instrument  of  revolt  or  threaten  the  de- 
struction of  the  social  order,  in  such  and 
similar  cases  the  State  can  and  ought  to  sus- 
pend and  even  suppress  the  use  of  this  means 
of    defence.     In    these    circumstances    the 

1  Leo  XIII.    On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


146  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

strike,  being  a  real  and  grave  menace  to  the 
social  order,  cannot  be  considered  any  longer 
as  the  exercise  of  a  right."  1  It  lacks  one  or 
more  of  the  conditions  necessary  that  the 
strike  be  considered  just.  The  fundamental 
justification  for  the  State's  action  in  sup- 
pressing all  such  strikes  is  the  fact  that  they 
are  unjust,  and  "when  strikes  are  unjust, 
because  they  lack  one  or  more  of  the  neces- 
sary conditions,  then  the  State  has  the  right 
to  prohibit  them."  2 

But  while  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  to 
defend  the  natural  rights  of  all  its  citizens, 
it  is  neither  the  duty  nor  the  prerogative  so 
to  exaggerate  the  power  of  one  as  to  destroy 
the  natural  rights  of  another.  The  State 
must,  therefore,  at  all  times  and  particularly 
when  repressing  any  violence  of  the  strikers, 
be  especially  careful  not  to  lend  its  assistance 
morally  or  physically  to  the  continuance  of 
injustice.  To  the  authorities  of  any  State 
belongs  the  solemn  duty  of  securing  the  im- 
partial administration  of  justice,  and  par- 
ticularly that  of  protecting  the  weak  against 
a  violation  of  their  just  and  sacred  rights. 
When  the  State  officials,  acting  on  principle, 

1  Antoine,  op.  cit.,  p.  465. 

2Macksey,  Argumenta  Sociologies,  Schol.  5,  p.  136. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  147 

as  has  often  happened,  array  themselves  on 
the  side  of  the  employer  against  whom  a  just 
strike  has  been  called,  they  not  only  grossly 
neglect  their  most  sacred  duty,  but  they  be- 
come gravely  guilty  of  cooperating  in  the 
injustice  of  the  employer.  Such  action  as 
is  recorded  by  Adele  Shaw  in  the  steel  strike 
number  of  the  Survey  (Nov.  8)  in  connec- 
tion with  the  steel  strike  of  1919,  cannot  be 
defended  on  any  score.  In  the  town  of 
Braddock  where  the  people  were  on  strike 
for  the  right  to  organize  and  bargain  col- 
lectively, as  well  as  against  a  twelve-hour 
day,  the  sacred  rights  of  the  laborers  were 
violated  by  those  whose  duty  it  was  to  safe- 
guard them  against  invasion.  Not  only 
were  the  men  forbidden  by  the  sheriff  of 
Allegheny  County  to  hold  any  open-air  or 
indoor  meetings,  but  a  warning  was  sent 
Father  Kazinczy  "direct  from  a  high  public 
official  that,  if  he  did  not  stop  holding 
strikers'  meetings  under  the  guise  of  re- 
ligious services,  his  church  would  be  closed." 
This  threat  failing,  without  any  provocation 
on  the  part  of  the  men,  "as  the  congregation 
poured  out  of  church  ...  it  was  beaten 
about  by  State  Constabulary  who  rode  up  on 
the  steps  that  led  to  its  very  doors."    Later 


148  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

his  Sunday  School  children  were  clubbed  as 
they  left  the  church.  Again  a  funeral  pro- 
cession which  could  have  easily  been  called 
off  by  an  official  proclamation,  was  rudely 
broken  up.  "The  authorities  waited  until 
the  procession  was  slowly  making  its  long 
length  down  the  street  when  the  troopers 
rode  into  it  and  manhandled  the  partici- 
pants." *  Such  action,  especially  when  con- 
trasted with  the  peaceful  behavior  of  the 
strikers  themselves,  cannot  be  too  strongly 
condemned,  as  "the  first  function  of  au- 
thority is  to  secure  that  our  rights  are  re- 
spected," 2  rather  than  to  lend  itself  to  their 
violation. 

a.     Direct  Legislation 

MORALISTS  generally  are  agreed 
that  the  State  under  the  present 
industrial  regime  may  not  by  gen- 
eral legislation  take  away  from  the  laborers 
the  right  to  strike.  "A  strike,"  says  Fr. 
Antoine,  "provided  it  is  just,  cannot  be  for- 
bidden absolutely  by  law,"  3  for  in  such  a 

JThe  Survey,  November  8,  1919. 

2  Card.  Mer'eier,  A  Manual  of  Scholastic  Philosophy,  Vol 
II,  p.  336. 

3  Economic  Sociale,  p.  465. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  149 

case  the  strikers  are  but  using  their  natural 
right  of  self-defence  against  the  injustice  of 
their  employer.  Short  of  State  assistance 
(which  States  do  not  supply)  laborers  have 
no  other  means  of  vindicating  their  rights. 
It  is  largely  by  organized  resistance  that 
they  have  been  able  up  to  the  present  to  ob- 
tain the  scanty  measure  of  justice  accorded 
them.  "No  entire  class  or  industrial  grade 
of  laborers  has  ever  secured  or  retained  any 
important  economic  advantage  except  by  its 
aggressiveness  and  its  own  power  of  resist- 
ance brought  to  bear  upon  the  employer 
through  the  medium  of  force  (economic)  or 
fear."  *  The  laborers,  under  the  pressure  of 
economic  force,  to  which  they  are  subjected 
at  the  hands  of  their  employers  and  the  gen- 
eral public  in  its  function  as  consumer,  are 
certain  to  be  subjected  to  still  greater  injus- 
tices, unless  they  are  able  to  oppose  this 
pressure  in  some  effective  manner — either 
through  State  assistance  or  their  own  initia- 
tive action.  As  the  State  does  not  render 
the  needed  assistance,  the  only  weapon  left 
to  the  laborers  to  defend  their  rights  against 
violation  is  their  own  action.  But  only  by 
joint  resistance  can  they  effectually  safe- 

1  Ryan,  The  Church  and  Socialism-,  p.  105. 


150  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

guard  themselves  from  grave  injustice,  or 
as  Monsignor  Parkinson  states,  "the  civil 
authority  has  no  power  to  annul  the  inherent 
right  of  the  workmen  to  strike,  for  this  is  his 
natural  means  of  defence."  x  Besides  the 
State  has  the  obligation  to  assist  the  laborers 
in  the  vindication  of  their  rights.  "Justice 
demands  that  the  interests  of  the  poorer  peo- 
ple be  carefully  watched  over  by  the  admin- 
istration. .  .  .  The  first  concern  of  all  is  to 
save  the  poor  workers  from  the  cruelty  of 
grasping  speculators  who  use  human  beings 
as  mere  instruments  for  making  money."  2 

Under  the  present  condition  of  civil  and 
industrial  society  it  is  clearly  "the  duty  of 
civil  authority  to  obviate  the  extreme  conse- 
quences of  economic  advantages.  However 
we  may  explain  its  power,  it  is  an  incontest- 
able fact  that  civil  authority  is  bound  to 
moderate  the  sway  of  superior  economic 
strength.  .  .  .  Heretofore,  indeed,  civil  au- 
thority has  not  only  failed  to  restrain  but,  to 
a  great  extent,  it  has  shown  itself  an  ally  of 
superior  economic  strength.  Those  who 
have  been  stronger  economically  have  been 
stronger  also  politically  and  have  not  re- 

1 A  Primer  of  Social  Science,  p.  131. 
1  Leo  XIII.    On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  151 

frained  from  using  their  two-fold  oppor- 
tunity to  crush  their  rivals."  * 

It  is  largely  because  the  State  has  failed 
in  its  duty  towards  the  laboring  classes  that 
so  many  workers  are  subjected  to  the  injus- 
tices that  call  for  concerted  resistance  to 
vindicate  their  claims  to  justice.    Inasmuch 
as  the  State,  as  mentioned  above,  has  at 
times  deprived  the  workmen  of  their  natural 
rights  in  this  matter,  it  must  be  held  directly 
responsible,  at  least  to  a  certain  extent,  for 
the  injustice  which  in  general  a  very  large 
section  of  the  working  class  is  called  on  to 
bear.    Should  the  State  then,  by  absolutely 
prohibiting    all    strikes,    remove    from   the 
laboring  class  their  only  means  of  defence 
against  injustice,  it  would  be  doubly  guilty. 
In  the  case  of  a  just  strike  neither  the  em- 
ployer nor  society's  strict  rights  are  violated. 
Were  this  so  it  would  be  the  State's  duty  to 
safeguard  them,  even  to  the  extent  of  pro- 
hibiting strikes,  if  that  were  necessary.    But 
only  the  strikers'  rights  have  been  violated, 
and  against  such  violation  it  is  the  State's 
duty  to   protect   the   laborers   rather  than 
wrest  from  them  their  only  weapon  of  de- 
fence.    To  forbid  absolutely  such  a  strike 

1  Kelleher,  Irish  Theol.  Quart.,  Vol.  VII,  p.  3. 


152  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

would  constitute  a  violation  of  the  sacred 
right  of  the  laborers  which  the  State  has  the 
solemn  obligation  to  safeguard. 

b.     Compulsory  Arbitration 

MR.  CRONIN  and  a  few  other  mor- 
alists imagine  they  have  found  an 
adequate  solution  of  the  strike 
problem  in  compulsory  arbitration  tribunals, 
established  by  State  authority,  the  decisions 
of  which  are  to  be  made  legally  binding  on 
both  parties.  "In  every  country,"  writes  Fr. 
Cronin,  "there  should  be  set  up  special  tri- 
bunals authorized  to  deal  compulsorily  with 
all  questions  concerning  the  nature  and  con- 
ditions of  labor,  and  those  tribunals  being 
once  set  up,  both  the  strike  and  the  lockout 
should  be  strictly  forbidden  as  at  once 
unnecessary  and  opposed  to  the  common 
good."  *  We  can  hardly  subscribe  to  this 
opinion.  In  the  first  place  it  is  a  sound  prin- 
ciple of  ethics  that  State  intervention  should 
be  resorted  to  only  in  grave  matters  and  as 
a  last  recourse,  where  justice  to  individuals 
or  the  welfare  of  society  cannot  be  secured 
by  private  means.    "Only  where  the  citizen 

xThe  Science  of  Ethics,  p.  371. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  153 

cannot  help  himself  must  the  State  come  to 
his  assistance,"  *  and  even  here,  as  Fr. 
Husslein  points  out,  the  purpose  should  be 
wisely,  "to  help  others  to  help  themselves." 

Fr.  Cronin  would  have  these  compulsory 
arbitration  tribunals  render  authoritative  de- 
cisions on  "all  questions  concerning  the 
nature  and  conditions  of  labor."  Now  there 
are  many  questions  of  minor  importance 
bearing  on  the  labor  problem  which  un- 
doubtedly could  be  settled  equitably  without 
having  recourse  to  such  tribunals,  and  as 
Cardinal  Mercier  points  out,  "far  from  sup- 
pressing private  action  the  State  must  en- 
courage and  foster  it  in  every  way." 2 
Besides  there  are  questions  of  grave  concern 
to  both  the  employer  and  the  laborers  which 
do  not  admit  of  arbitration,  such  as  the  right 
of  association,  the  right  of  the  laborer  to  a 
living  wage,  etc.  It  is  quite  conceivable, 
with  the  great  balance  of  economic  force  on 
the  side  of  the  employers,  that  they  might, 
through  some  political  influence,  secure  the 
setting  up  of  anything  but  an  impartial  tri- 
bunal. This  most  of  the  laborers  fear  and 
apparently  not  without  reason.    Should  such 

1  Husslein,  The  World  Problem;  p.  136. 

a  A  Manual  of  Modern  Schol.  Phil.,  Vol.  II,  p.  337. 


154  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

a  tribunal  render  a  decision  forcing  the 
laborers  to  accept  a  less  than  living  wage, 
or  to  labor  under  unjust  conditions,  Fr. 
Cronin  would  impose  on  the  laborers  aff ected 
the  moral  obligation  of  abiding  by  such  a 
decision,  however  unfair  or  unjust  it  might 
be  to  themselves.  He  would  abrogate  the 
laborers'  natural  right  to  strike  in  deference 
to  such  a  tribunal  on  the  plea  of  it  being 
"unnecessary  and  opposed  to  the  common 
good."  We  fail  to  see  how  the  common  good 
can  be  adequately  safeguarded  by  a  tribunal 
which  might  easily,  under  present  or  future 
economic  and  political  conditions,  become  an 
instrument  of  injustice  towards  a  very  large 
portion  of  society.  Since  justice,  as  well  as 
charity,  are  both  compatible  with  every 
phase  of  industrial  life,  any  proposed  gen- 
eral remedy  for  industrial  ills  that  fails  to 
safeguard  adequately  the  claims  of  both  of 
these  must  be  to  that  extent  deficient  as  a 
complete  solution  of  the  industrial  problem, 
and  consequently  should  be  condemned. 

Nor  would  such  a  tribunal,  on  the  face  of 
it,  be  likely  to  prove  an  adequate  protection 
against  the  strike  evil.  Where  the  laborers 
feel  that  the  decision  rendered  is  unjust  they 
are  not  always  likely  to  abide  by  such  a  de- 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  155 

cision.  They  will  strike  in  defiance  of  these 
laws.  This  has  been  the  experience  in  all 
countries  where  compulsory  arbitration  tri- 
bunals have  been  established.  Even  in  Aus- 
tralia and  New  Zealand,  where  minimum 
wage  and  other  beneficial  labor  legislation 
have  removed  many  of  the  causes  of  indus- 
trial strife,  the  compulsory  arbitration  tri- 
bunal has  not  proved  effective.  "Since  1907 
no  year  has  passed  in  New  Zealand  without 
its  quota  of  unlawful  strikes.  In  October, 
1913,  a  strike  was  started  by  the  Waterside 
Workers  Union  at  Wellington  which  threat- 
ened to  be  the  largest  in  the  history  of  the 
colony.  .  .  .  The  conclusion  that  may  legiti- 
mately be  drawn  from  these  strikes  in  New 
Zealand  is  that  complete  State  regulation  of 
the  labor  contract  is  far  from  being  the  uni- 
versal panacea  for  industrial  disputes.  .  .  . 
It  is  very  difficult  for  the  State  to  enforce 
laws  to  which  a  large  and  strongly  organ- 
ized body  of  its  citizens  is  opposed.  ...  It 
may  be  that  compulsory  arbitration  has 
proved  to  be  a  two-edged  sword ;  that  it  has 
provided  a  remedy  for  many  industrial  dis- 
putes .  .  .  but  that  at  the  same  time  it  has 
given  rise  to  a  needless  multiplication  of  dis- 
putes, and  therefore  to  a  State  regulated 


156  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

contract  in  many  instances  where  it  was  alto- 
gether unnecessary."  * 

The  case  of  Australia  is  generally  cited  by 
the  advocates  of  compulsory  arbitration  as 
conclusive  evidence  of  the  success  of  such  a 
method  in  preventing  strikes.  Here,  if  any- 
where, conditions  were  favorable  for  proving 
the  worth  of  such  a  measure.  The  labor 
party  which  fathered  the  measure  had  al- 
ways been  strong  politically  and  "since  1915 
has  been  in  control  of  the  commonwealth."  2 
The  Government  has  been  most  active  in 
passing  much  beneficent  labor  legislation 
and  in  this  way  removed  many  of  the  causes 
of  industrial  disputes.  As  early  as  "the 
year  1900  all  of  the  States  of  Australia  had 
made  provision  for  the  establishment  of 
minimum  wages."  3  Yet  in  spite  of  all  this, 
and  notwithstanding  the  fact  that  "arbitra- 
tion was  begotten  and  conceived  in  the  camp 
of  labor,"  the  experiment  "has  proved  a 
gigantic  failure  in  Australia."  4     While  in 

10'Grady,  A  Legal  Minimum  Wage,  pp.  31-32.  Cf. 
Aves,  Report  to  Sec'y  of  Home  Dept.,  on  Wages,  Board 
and  Industrial  Conciliation  and  Arnitration  Acts  in  Aus- 
tralia and  New  Zealand,  pp.  103-107;  Commons  and 
Andrews,  Principles  of  Labor  Legislation,  pp.  146-156; 
Carlton,  History  of  Organized  Labor,  p.  960. 

3  Commons  and  Andrews,  op.  cit.,  p.  150. 

3  Ryan,  Distrib.  Just.,  p.  401. 

4  P.  Airey,  Arbitration  in  Australia,  The  National  Re- 
view, January,  1920. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  157 

the  year  1914,  737°  of  the  labor  troubles  in 
Australia  were  settled  by  direct  negotiation 
between  the  employer  and  the  employees; 
71%  in  1915;  63%  in  1916;  35%  in  1917; 
and  57%  in  1918,  arbitration  utterly  failed 
to  settle  the  remaining  disputes.  "The  per- 
centage settled  by  reference  to  the  State  and 
Federal  Arbitration  Courts  was  compara- 
tively small."  '  Mr.  Kibbs,  the  Australian 
statistician,  in  his  Annual  Report  gives 
the  number  of  strikes  for  the  years  1914- 
1918  to  be  1,945,  distributed  as  follows: 
1914—337;  1915—358;  1916—508;  1917— 
444 ;  1918 — 296.2  Many  of  these  were  very 
large  and  not  a  few  in  direct  defiance  of 
the  awards  of  the  Arbitration  Courts.  At 
times  Federal  Government  has  been  com- 
pelled by  the  strikers  "in  defiance  of  the  arbi- 
tration law  to  override  the  Court  and  ap- 
point a  'special  tribunal'  to  adjudicate"  the 
differences.  Not  only  this,  but  "Australia 
has  enjoyed  the  spectacle  of  seeing  the  Gov- 
ernment departments  'pulled  up'  before  the 
tribunal  .  .  .  and  having  to  plead  their  case 
in  the  judicial  court  for  Trades  Disputa- 
tions, which  they  themselves  had  set  up," 

1  Airey,  op.  cit. 

•Annual  Report  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  July,  1919. 


158  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

and  compelled  to  grant  increase  in  wages 
although  they  pleaded  "that  the  financial 
necessities  of  the  country,  drought,  civil  ca- 
lamities, and  falling  revenue  would  not  al- 
low of  the  granting  of  such  rises  as  the 
public  servants  demanded." 1  The  testi- 
mony of  the  Australian  statistician  given 
above  clearly  shows  the  "land  without 
strikes"  is  far  from  being  such. 

After  making  a  thorough  study  of  the 
workings  of  the  various  legal  methods  pro- 
posed or  adopted  for  the  settlement  of  In- 
dustrial strife,  the  United  States  Commis- 
sion on  Industrial  Relations  rendered  the 
following  report:  "After  considering  all 
forms  of  Government  compulsion  in  indus- 
trial disputes  and  even  admitting  their  par- 
tial success  in  other  countries,  we  conclude 
that  on  the  whole,  in  this  country,  as  much 
can  be  accomplished  in  the  long  run  by 
strictly  voluntary  methods  of  avoiding 
strikes  and  lockouts.  It  cannot  be  expected 
that  strikes  and  lockouts  can  be  abolished 
altogether.  Even  countries  with  compul- 
sory systems  have  not  succeeded  in  prevent- 
ing all  of  them."  2     Since  this  report  was 

*Airey,  op.  cit. 

2  Final  Report  of  the  Commission  on  Industrial  Relations, 
1915,  p.  3T6. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  159 

drawn  up  the  failure  of  compulsory  arbi- 
tration to  solve  the  strike  problem  has 
become  very  much  more  apparent. 

Even  had  compulsory  arbitration  proved 
effective  in  preventing  strikes,  it  would  not, 
therefore,  follow  that  the  State  would  be 
justified  in  resorting  to  such  extreme 
methods.  Compulsory  arbitration,  through 
a  general  law  prohibiting  all  strikes,  could 
only  be  justified  where  the  preservation  of 
the  welfare  of  society  demanded  such  action, 
and  where  all  less  drastic  methods  have 
proved  ineffective.  Compulsory  arbitration 
of  itself  carries  no  guarantee  that  justice 
will  be  secure  either  to  the  employers  or  to 
the  laborers.  If  the  State  deprives  the 
laborers  of  their  right  to  enforce  their  claims 
to  justice  by  means  of  a  strike,  without  at 
the  same  time  securing  the  establishment  of 
justice  in  the  industrial  relationship  between 
the  employer  and  the  employee,  it  is  un- 
doubtedly transgressing  the  limits  of  its 
authority  !  and  any  social  system  which  is 
based  on  such  a  perversion  of  natural  rights 
is  wrong  in  principle,  and  a  reaction  accom- 
panied by  disastrous  consequences  to  society 
is  bound  to  result. 

1  Cf.  Vermeersch,  op.  cit,  n.  477  (5). 


160  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

2.       INDIRECT  METHODS 

THERE  can  be  no  question  of  the 
State's  right  to  diminish  the  causes 
of  strikes  or  to  promote  the  estab- 
lishment of  institutions  to  which  both  parties 
to  an  industrial  controversy  may  resort  for 
a  peaceful  settlement  of  their  differences. 
For  as  the  Holy  Father  has  stated,  "Laws 
should  be  beforehand  and  prevent  these 
troubles  (strikes)  from  arising;  they  should 
lend  their  influence  and  authority  to  the  re- 
moval in  good  time  of  the  causes  which  lead 
to  conflicts  between  masters  and  those  they 
employ."  *  It  is  quite  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  State  to  establish  courts  of  con- 
ciliation and  arbitration  to  which  the  em- 
ployer and  employees  may  resort  for  the 
adjusting  of  their  differences.2  It  would 
seem,  in  fact,  that  the  State  has  an  obliga- 
tion in  this  respect,  for  it  is  the  duty  of  the 
State  to  do  all  that  lies  within  its  power  to 
avert  these  disasters,  and  experience  has 
shown  that  in  this  way  many  strikes  can 
easily  be  prevented.  Generally  where  such 
tribunals  are  available,  laborers  are  bound 

1  Leo  XIII.     On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 
2Cf.  Garriguet,  Regime  du  Travail,  p.  141. 


THE  MORxYLITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  161 

to  have  recourse  to  them  for  the  adjustment 
of  their  claims,  unless,  indeed,  experience  or 
other  grave  reasons  would  justify  their 
prudent  conviction  of  the  futility  of  having 
recourse  to  any  tribunal.  Ordinarily,  failure 
to  resort  to  such  a  tribunal  would  call  for 
the  condemnation  of  the  strike  on  the  ground 
of  their  failure  to  resort  to  all  the  less  drastic 
means  available  for  the  enforcement  of  their 
just  claims — one  of  the  conditions  that  a 
strike  may  be  considered  morally  justifi- 
able. 

Not  only  should  the  State  provide  such 
tribunals  but  it  may  have  and  has  undoubt- 
edly the  right  "to  forbid  strikes  until  they 
first  endeavor  to  settle  their  differences  by 
arbitration,"  *  if  such  measures  be  necessary 
for  the  safeguarding  and  promotion  of  the 
common  good.  Compulsory  arbitration  of 
industrial  differences — as  long  as  the  State 
does  not  oblige  the  contesting  parties  to 
abide  by  the  decisions  of  the  tribunal — does 
not  abrogate  any  natural  right  either  of  the 
worker  or  of  the  employer.  Like  the  right 
to  private  ownership  of  productive  property, 
the  right  to  strike  is  not  unlimited  or  abso- 

1  Verrneersch,  op.    cit,  n.   477    (5);   Tanquerey,  op.   cit., 
n.  850. 


J 


162  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

lute  and  can  be  defended  only  in  so  far  as 
it  does  not  interfere  with  the  common  good. 
The  State  certainly  has  the  right  and  obli- 
gation to  impose  restrictions  on  the  exercise 
of  both  of  these  rights.  The  nature  of  these 
restrictions  will  depend  on  circumstances  of 
time  and  place,  it  being  always  kept  in  mind 
by  those  charged  with  the  exercise  of  author- 
ity in  this  matter  that  "the  State  should 
interfere  only  in  so  far  as  the  common  good 
requires  its  just  and  prudent  intervention."  ' 
To  the  extent  to  which  the  State  can  provide 
other  efficient  and  less  drastic  means  for 
the  adjustment  of  differences  and  the  secur- 
ing of  justice  to  both  parties,  to  that  extent 
may  it  limit  the  laborer's  right  to  strike. 
Experience  would  tend  to  show  that  more 
can  be  accomplished  in  the  matter  of  strike 
intervention  by  the  establishment  of  com- 
pulsory arbitration  tribunals,  where  the  ac- 
ceptance of  decisions  rendered  is  left  to  the 
free-will  of  those  directly  interested,  than 
by  attempting  to  force  the  employer  and  em- 
ployees. 

Many  countries  are  coming  to  favor  a  sys- 
tem of  arbitration  similar  to  that  which,  with 
some  modifications,  has  been  in  operation 

1  Husslein,  op.  cit.,  p.  63. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  165 

in  Canada  since  1907,  when  an  attempt  was 
made  to  solve  the  strike  problem  by  the  pass- 
ing of  the  Industrial  Disputes  Investigation 
Act,  a  form  of  compulsory  investigation  and 
arbitration.  The  scope  of  the  Act  as  enacted 
is  to  "aid  in  the  prevention  and  settlement 
of  strikes  and  lockouts  in  mines  and  indus- 
tries connected  with  public  utilities."  1  In 
any  other  industry  or  trade  where  a  dispute 
"threatens  to  result  in  a  lockout  or  strike,  or 
has  actually  resulted  in  a  lockout  or  strike"  2 
the  provisions  of  the  Act,  on  the  agreement 
of  both  parties,  may  also  be  applied.  In 
general  "the  measure  applies  to  industry,  the 
principle  of  investigation  prior  to  a  lockout 
or  strike.  It  is  founded  upon  the  idea  of 
introducing  into  industry  a  system  of  ad- 
justing industrial  differences  based  upon  the 
principle  of  law  and  order.  It  takes  away 
no  right  of  strike  or  lockout  from  the  parties 
to  the  industrial  disputes."  3  The  Act  com- 
bines the  best  features  of  conciliation  and 
arbitration  with  investigation.  It  differs, 
however,  essentially  from  compulsory  arbi- 
tration as  ordinarily  understood.  The  real 
significance  of  the  Act  has  been  well  set  forth 

1    6-7  Edward  VII,  Chap.  20. 

'Op.  cit.,  sec.  63. 

•  Mackenzie  King,  Industry  and  Humanity,  p.  495. 


164s  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

by  the  Chief  Industrial  Commissioner  and 
Chairman  of  the  Industrial  Council  of  the 
United  Kingdom  in  a  report  made  in  the 
year  1912  to  the  British  Government.  In 
this  report  Sir  George  Askwith  says:  "It 
(the  Act)  only  endeavors  to  postpone  a 
stoppage  of  work  in  certain  industries  for  a 
brief  period  and  for  a  specific  purpose.  It 
does  not  destroy  the  right  of  employers  or 
work  people  to  terminate  contracts.  It  does 
not  attempt  to  regulate  details  of  adminis- 
tration of  business  by  employers  or  trade 
unions.  It  legalizes  the  community's  right 
to  intervene  in  a  trade  dispute  by  enacting 
that  a  stoppage  either  by  strike  or  lockout 
shall  not  take  place  until  the  community, 
through  a  Government  Department,  has  in- 
vestigated the  difference  with  the  object  of 
ascertaining  if  a  recommendation  cannot  be 
made  to  the  parties  which  both  can  accept 
as  a  settlement  of  the  difference.  It  presup- 
poses that  industrial  differences  are  adjust- 
able, and  that  the  best  method  of  securing 
adjustment  is  by  discussion  and  negotiation. 
It  stipulates  that  before  a  stoppage  takes 
place  the  possibilities  of  settlement  by  dis- 
cussion and  negotiation  shall  have  been  ex- 
hausted, but  it  does  not  prohibit  a  stoppage 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  165 

either  by  lockout  or  strike  if  it  is  found  that 
no  recommendation  can  be  made  which  is  ac- 
ceptable to  both  sides.     If  no  way  out  of 
the  difficulty  can  be  found  acceptable  to  both 
parties  there  is  no  arbitrary  insistence  upon 
a  continuance  of  either  employment  or  labor, 
but  both  sides  are  left  to  take  such  action 
as  they  may  think  fit.    As  a  result,  it  does 
not  force  unsuitable  regulations  on  indus- 
tries by  compulsory  and  legal  insistence,  but 
leaves  an  opportunity  for  modifications  by 
the  parties.     It  permits  elasticity  and  re- 
vision and,  if  it  does  not  effect  a  settlement, 
indicates  a  basis  on  which  one  can  be  made."  * 
The  effectiveness  of  the  Canadian  method 
as  compared  with  the  Compulsory  Arbitra- 
tion Law  of  Australia  is  quite  apparent. 
During  the  years  1914-18  the  total  number 
of  strikes  in  Canada  has  been  506 2— scarcely 
more  than  one-fourth  the  number  which  oc- 
curred in  the  same  period  in  Australia  where 
illegal  strikes  numbered  1,945.3     The  effec- 
tiveness of  the  measure  of  settling  the  indus- 
trial disputes  is   seen  from  the   fact  that 

1  Report  to  the  Board  of  Trade  on  the  Indus.  Disputes 
Investigation  Act  of  Canada  1907,  p.  7.     London,  1913. 

,The  Labor  Gazette,  Dept.  of  Labor,  Canada,  March, 
1919    p.  278. 

3  Cf .  Australian  Report,  Dept.  of  Labor,  July,  1919. 


166  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

although  the  decisions  are  not  obligatory, 
yet  during  the  period  from  March  22,  1907, 
to  March  31,  1919,  it  has  failed  to  avert 
strikes  in  only  22  of  the  disputes  that  came 
within  the  scope  of  the  Act. 1 

A  closer  acquaintance  of  the  workings  of 
the  Act  on  the  part  of  the  employers  and 
laborers  in  Canada  has  resulted,  as  is  shown 
by  the  Labor  Report  of  Canada  in  various 
years,  in  an  increasing  disposition  on  the 
part  of  those  concerned  in  the  disputes 
brought  before  the  board  to  accept  the  find- 
ings of  the  court,  and  in  a  more  frequent 
application  of  the  machinery  of  the  Act  to 
the  settlement  of  disputes  in  "outside"  in- 
dustries. During  the  year  from  March  31, 
1918-March  31,  1919,  twenty-five  such  cases 
were  referred  to  a  Board  of  Conciliation  and 
Investigation,  and  in  all  cases  an  amicable 
settlement  was  effected. 

However,  arbitration,  conciliation,  or  in- 
vestigation legislation  alone  can  never  bring 
about  a  permanent  settlement  of  the  indus- 
trial struggle  no  matter  how  successful  any 
such  measures  may  be  in  effecting  temporary 
settlement  of  industrial  differences  when 
they  arise.    They,  like  the  Workmen's  Com- 

1  Labor  Gazette,  Dept.  of  Labor,  August,  1919,  p.  902. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  167 

pensation  Act,  and  the  various  forms  of 
social  insurance  legislation,  although  good 
and    necessary    in   themselves,    fail    under 
present  conditions  of  industry  to  touch  the 
real  heart  of  the  problem.    No  mere  surface 
legislation  will  suffice,  for  the  remedy,  to 
prove   permanently   effective,   must    strike 
boldly   at  the  very  root  of  the   economic 
struggle.     Not  only  the  present  injustices, 
but  their  very  causes  must  be  remedied  and 
removed.     Statistics    show   that   the    wage 
problem  has  been  the  source  of  over  fifty 
per  cent  of  the  strikes  that  have  occurred 
in  this  country.    It  is  obvious  that  any  leg- 
islation that  will  remove  the  injustices  done 
to  the  laborers  in  this  respect  will  have  the 
result  of  removing  the  cause  of  the  larger 
portion  of  our  strikes.     "Proposals  for  the 
reform  of  social  conditions  are  important  in 
proportion  to  the  magnitude  of  the  evils 
which  they  are  designed  to  remove  and  are 
desirable   in  proportion  to  their  probable 
efficacy.     Applying  these  principles  to  the 
labor  situation,  we  find  that  among  the  reme- 
dies proposed,  the  primacy  must  be  accorded 
to  the  minimum  wage.    It  is  the  most  impor- 
tant project  for  improving  the  condition  of 
labor,  because  it  would  increase  the  compen- 


168  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

sation  of  some  two-thirds  of  the  wage  earn- 
ers and  because  the  needs  of  this  group  are 
greater  and  more  urgent  than  the  needs  of 
the  better  paid  one-third.  ...  A  legal  mini- 
mum wage  is  the  most  desirable  single  meas- 
ure of  industrial  reform  because  it  promises 
a  more  rapid  and  comprehensive  increase  in 
the  wages  of  the  underpaid  than  any  alterna- 
tive device  that  is  now  available."  x  That 
such  legislation  would  undoubtedly  prove 
beneficial  is  evident  from  the  results  where 
the  system  has  been  tried  out.  According 
to  Professor  Hammond  of  Ohio,  who  con- 
ducted investigations  during  the  year  1911- 
12,  the  people  of  Australia  have  "accepted 
the  minimum  wage  as  a  permanent  policy  in 
the  industrial  legislation  in  that  part  of  the 
wrorld."  2  In  Great  Britain  under  the  Trade 
Board  Acts  "the  beneficial  effects  of  the 
minimum  wage  have  been  even  more  strik- 
ing than  in  Australia."  3 

Experience  has  shown,  then,  that  such 
legislation  will  prove  not  only  beneficial  to 
a  very  large  portion  of  the  laboring  class, 

1  Cf.  Ryan,  Distrib.  Just.,  p.  400. 

2  Amer.  Economic  Rev.,  June,  1913.  Quoted  by  Ryan, 
Distrib.  Just.,  p.  403. 

3  Ryan,  op.  cit,  p.  403;  Cf.  Wright,  Sweated  Labor  and 
Trade  Boards  Act.,  Chap.  Ill;  O'Grady,  A  Legal  Minimum 
Wage,  Chap.  VI,  VII. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  169 

but  to  society  as  well.    It  is  clearly,  there- 
fore, the  duty  of  the  State  to  enact  such  leg- 
islation, for  it  is  the  duty  of  the  State  in  all 
circumstances  to  seek  to  remove  the  occa- 
sions that  may  lead  to  strikes.     This  is  in 
complete  accord  with  the  teachings  of  Pope 
Leo  XIII,  who  writes,  "when  the  work- 
people have  recourse  to  strike  it  is  frequently 
because  the  hours  of  labor  are  too  long,  or 
the  work  too  hard  or  because  they  consider 
their  wages  insufficient.     The  grave  incon- 
venience of  this  not  uncommon  occurrence 
should  be  obviated  by  public  remedial  meas- 
ures. .  .  .  The  laws  should  be  beforehand 
and   prevent   these  troubles  from   arising; 
they  should  use  their  influence  and  authority 
to  the  removal  in  good  time  of  the  causes  that 
lead  to  conflicts  between  masters  and  those 
whom  they  employ."  * 

The  modern  system  of  Capitalism  has 
arisen  largely  from  the  disregarding  of  the 
sacred  rights  of  the  laborer  to  a  reasonable 
family  wage.  It  continues  its  work  by  the 
warfare  of  unrestricted  competition  under 
a  State  policy  which  has  guaranteed  to  the 
employer  the  inviolability  of  his  private 
property  while  it  has  at  the  same  time  per- 

1  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


170  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

mitted  the  employer  to  exploit  the  necessi- 
ties of  the  laborers  by  forcing  them  to 
consent  to  a  wage  that  was  far  below  the 
minimum  of  justice.  In  acting  in  this  way 
the  State  has  manifestly  done  "but  half  its 
duty.  It  is  failing  to  defend  the  laborers' 
natural  right  of  access  on  reasonable  terms 
to  the  sources  of  supply."  *  Inasmuch  as 
the  individual  employers  have  failed  not  only 
in  their  duty  to  the  laborers,  but  also  in  their 
social  responsibilities  to  the  State,  it  is  un- 
doubtedly the  duty  of  the  State  to  enforce 
their  observances.  "Whether  it  be  consid- 
ered from  the  viewpoint  of  ethics,  politics,  or 
economics,  the  principle  of  the  legal  mini- 
mum wage  is  impregnable.  The  State  has 
not  only  the  moral  right  but  the  moral  duty 
to  enact  legislation  of  this  sort  whenever  any 
important  group  of  laborers  are  receiving 
less  than  the  living  wages."  2 

Yet,  however  far  legislation  which  pro- 
vides for  a  minimum  wage,  reasonable  hours 
of  work,  conditions  of  employment,  social  in- 
surance, etc.,  may  go  towards  solving  the 
industrial  problem  by  removing  the  osten- 
sible causes  of  the  greater  number  of  strikes, 

1  Moran,  Irish  Theol.  Quart.,  April,  1919,  p.  105. 

2  Ryan,  op.  cit.,  p.  407. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  171 

such  legislation  of  itself  is  bound  ultimately 
to  fall  short  of  being  an  adequate  remedy. 
Any  scheme  which  fails  to  breach  over  the 
chasm  of  divergent  interests  which  separates 
the  capitalists  from  the  laboring  classes  must 
necessarily  be  defective.  So  must  also  be 
any  attempt  made  to  solve  the  social  prob- 
lem without  the  aid  of  Religion. 

"Ultimately  the  workers  must  become  not 
merely  wage  earners  but  capitalists.  Any 
other  system  will  always  contain  and  de- 
velop the  seeds  of  social  discontent  and  social 
disorder."  *  As  long  as  the  present  type  of 
industrial  system  continues  with  the  means 
of  production  and  the  instrumentalities  of 
distribution  almost  entirely  under  the  con- 
trol of  a  few  capitalists,  while  the  great 
bulk  of  humanity  is  left  dependent  on  their 
daily  wage,  the  seeds  of  industrial  strife  are 
bound  to  germinate.  A  system  of  this  kind 
does  not  make  adequate  provision  for  the 
full  development  of  man's  personality.  The 
great  body  of  workers  are  left  without  any 
adequate  means  of  satisfying  the  natural  in- 
stinct of  property,  the  failure  to  satisfy 
which  contributes  largely  to  producing  the 
present  unrest  among  the  laborers.    The  sat- 

1  Ryan,  Distrib.  Just.,  p.  425. 


172  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

isfying  of  this  instinct  is  necessary  that  man 
may  become  master  over  his  own  life  in  any 
adequate  sense.  "Lack  of  capital  deprives 
the  great  majority  of  wage  earners  of  the 
security,  confidence,  and  independence  which 
are  required  for  comfortable  existence  and 
efficient  citizenship."  1  John  Leitch  seems  to 
strike  very  near  the  root  of  the  trouble  when 
he  states:  "Men  strike  because  they  are 
without  adequate  representation;  what  is 
really  behind  it  all  (the  industrial  struggle) 
is  the  half-articulated  feeling  that  they 
should  be  treated  not  as  mere  material  but 
as  co-promoters  of  industry;  that  there 
should  be  dignity  in  their  position  and  rela- 
tions." 2  Laborers  must  be  given  adequate 
representation  in  the  field  of  production  and 
distribution.  The  majority  of  the  workers 
"must  somehow  become  owners,  or  at  least 
in  part,  of  the  instruments  of  production. 
They  can  be  enabled  to  reach  this  stage 
gradually  through  co-operative  productive 
societies  and  co-partnership  arrangements. 
.  .  .  However  slow  the  attainment  of  these 
ends,  they  will  have  to  be  reached  before  we 
can  have  a  thoroughly  efficient  system  of 

1Op.  cit,  p.  213. 

'Industrial  Democracy,  p.  28. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  173 

production  or  an  industrial  and  social  order 
that  will  be  secure  from  the  danger  of  revo- 
lution." 1  Wherever  the  cooperative  meth- 
ods have  been  tried  out  to  any  considerable 
extent  the  results  have  been  most  encourag- 
ing. In  England  where  the  cooperative 
movement  has  made  considerable  headway 
during  the  past  quarter  of  a  century,  results 
have  been  such  that  the  Whitley  Report  is- 
sued by  a  Parliamentary  committee  recom- 
mended "as  a  means  of  preventing  industrial 
unrest  and  industrial  disputes  during  the 
war  that  labor  be  given  a  greater  share  in 
industrial  management."  2  Profit  sharing  is 
but  another  step  forward — the  natural  pro- 
gression from  labor  participation  in  manage- 
ment. Carried  out  under  certain  conditions 
it  is  bound  to  contribute  much  towards 
securing  to  labor  a  deeper  interest  in  the 
processes  of  production  and  distribution,  be- 
sides removing  many  of  the  causes  of  labor 
troubles.  Through  this  system  the  laborers 
are  enabled  all  the  more  readily  to  become 
owners  of  capital  and  thus  satisfy  the  fun- 
damental craving  of  the  human  heart  for 

1  Social  Reconstruction,  Nat.  Cath.  War  Council  Pam- 
phlet, p.  22,  Wash.  D.  C,  1919. 

2Cf.  Ryan,  Labor  Sharing  in  Management  and  Profits, 
Cath.  Char.  Rev.,  Feb.  1920,  p.  48. 


174  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

private  property.  "Taken  together,  the  two 
devices  seem  to  be  the  most  effective  and 
promising  immediate  steps  toward  a  reason- 
able amount  of  democracy  in  industry,  im- 
proved relations  between  capital  and  labor, 
and  a  larger  and  better  product."  1 

The  duty  of  the  State  in  this  matter  is 
clear.  It  should  by  the  general  laws  of  the 
country  lend  every  possible  aid  to  the  pro- 
motion of  this  end.  "The  law  should  favor 
ownership  and  its  policy  should  be  to  induce 
as  many  as  possible  to  become  owners."  2 
Every  encouragement  should  be  given  also 
to  the  formation  of  industrial  unions  and  to 
the  operation  and  extension  of  the  principle 
of  collective  bargaining  between  the  employ- 
er and  the  employees.  In  this  way  the  inter- 
ests of  both  parties  to  the  trade  agreement 
will  be  regulated  more  in  accordance  with 
the  dictates  of  justice  and  the  danger  of  dis- 
rupting the  peace  of  society  by  industrial 
strife  will  be  considerably  lessened. 

However,  as  the  issues  involved  in  our 
industrial  disturbances  are  not  purely  eco- 
nomic but  "fundamentally  moral  and  re- 
ligious, so  their  settlement  calls  for  a  clear 

1  Cf.  Rvan,  op.  cit.,  March,  1920,  p.  74. 
aLeo  XIII.     On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  175 

perception  of  the  obligations  which  justice 
and  charity  impose."  1  Pope  Leo  XIII  de- 
clared truly  that  while  the  social  question 
demands  the  attention  of  "the  rulers  of 
States,  of  employers,  of  labor,  of  the  wealthy 
and  of  the  working  people  themselves,  .  .  . 
all  the  striving  of  men  will  be  in  vain  if  they 
leave  out  the  Church."  2  Only  in  the  light 
of  true  philosophical  and  religious  principles 
can  the  solution  for  the  great  industrial 
problem  be  found.  The  individual,  whether 
employer  or  laborer,  particularly  the  former, 
must  come  to  realize  that  only  through  a  re- 
turn to  the  practice  of  religion,  which  must 
effect  "a  considerable  change  in  human 
hearts  and  ideals"  of  all,  can  be  effected  the 
proper  ordering  of  economic  and  social  rela- 
tions which  will  put  an  end  to  the  necessity 
of  strikes  as  a  means  for  the  establishment 
and  safeguarding  of  justice. 

Pastoral    Letter  of  the   Bishops  of  the   United   States, 
Feb.,  1920. 
1  On  the  Condition  of  Labor. 


vn 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 
MORAL 

ANTOINE,  LE  R.  F.  CH.,  S.  J.,  Economic 
Sociale,  Guillaumin  &  Cie.,  Paris,  1899,  12th 
Edition. 

AQUINAS,  THOMAS,  Summa  Theologica, 
secunda  secundae. 

BOEDDER,  BERNARD,  Natural  Theology, 
New  York,  1910. 

CATHREIN,  VICTOR,  Moraiphilosophie,  Her- 
der, Freiburg,  1911. 

CRONIN,  MICHAEL,  M.  A.,  D.  D.,  The  Science 
of  Ethics,  Vol.  II,  Benziger  Brothers,  New 
York,  1917. 

CUTHBERT,  O.  S.  B.,  Catholic  Ideals  in  Social 
Life,  New  York,  1916. 

DEVAS,  CHAS.  S.,  Political  Economy,  Long- 
mans, Green  &  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1913. 

DUNOYER,  LE,  La  Libertie  du  Travail,  Vol. 
II,  Paris. 

GARRIGUET,  L.,  Regime  du  Travail,  Vol.  I, 
Librairie  Bloud  &  Cie.,  Paris,  1908,  13th 
edition. 

177 


178  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

GENICOT,  E.,  S.  J.,  Theologiae  Moralis  Institu- 
tions, Vol.  II,  A.  Dewit,  Brussels,  1909,  6th 
Edition. 

GIBON,  La  Liberte  du  Travail  et  les  Greves. 

HUSSLEIN,  JOSEPH,  S.  J.,  Ph.  D.,  Democratic 
Industry,  P.  J.  Kenedy  &  Sons,  New  York, 
1919. 

HUSSLEIN,  JOSEPH,  The  World  Problem, 
Capital,  Labor  and  the  Church,  P.  J.  Kenedy 
&  Sons,  New  York,  1918. 

KELLEHER,  J.,  Private  Ownership,  Benziger 
Brothers,  N.  Y.,  1911. 

KELLY,  FLORENCE,  Some  Ethical  Gains 
Through  Legislation,  New  York,  1905. 

LEHMKUHL,  A.,  S.  J.,  Theologia  Moralis,  I., 
Herder,  Freiburg  in  Breisgau,  1902. 

LEHMKUHL,  A.,  S.  J.,  Die  Sociale  Frage,  Frei- 
burg in  Breisgau,  1895. 

LEHMKUHL,  A.,  S.  J.,  Casus,  Vol.  I. 

LEHMKUHL,  A.,  S.  J.,  Arbeitersvertrag  und 
Strike,  Herder,  Freiburg,  1892,  Translated 
into  French  by  R.  D.  Fritsch,  Louvain,  1893. 

LASALLE,  J.,  Capital  et  Travail,  Lib.,  du  Prog- 
ress, Paris,  1880. 

LEO  XIII,  Pope,  Encyclical  Letter.  On  the  Con- 
dition of  Labor,  1891. 

McKENNA,  L.,  S.  J.,  M.  A.,  The  Church  and 
Labor,  P.  J.  Kenedy  &  Son,  New  York,  1914. 

MACKSEY,  S.  J.,  Argumenta  Sociologica  Di- 
gesta,  Gregorian  University,  Rome,  1918. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  179 

MERCIER,  CARDINAL,  A  Manual  of  Modern 

Scholastic  Philosophy,  Vol.   LT,  B.   Herder, 

St.  Louis,  1917. 
NAUDET,   L'ABBE,    Le    Christianisme    Social. 

Propriete,  Capital  et  Travail,  Bloud  &  Bar- 

ral,  Paris,  1896. 
NOLDIN,  H.,  S.  J.,  Summa  Theologiae  Moralis, 

Vol.  II,  Pustet,  New  York,  1914,  11th  Edi- 
tion. 
CPGRADY,  JOHN,  M.  A.,  Ph.  D.,  A  Legal  Mini- 
mum Wage,  Washington,  1915. 
PARKINSON,  HENRY,  D.  D.,  Ph.  D.,  A  Primer 

of    Social    Science,   Devin   Adair   Co.,    New 

York,  1913. 
PERIN,  CHARLES,  Premiers  Principes  d'econo- 

mie  Politique,  LeCoffre,  Paris,  2d  Edition, 

1896. 
PLATER,  CHARLES,  S.  J.,  The  Priest  in  Social 

Action,  New  York,  1914. 
POLIER,  L'Idee  du  Juste  Salaire,  Paris,  1903. 
POTTIER,  A.,  De  Jure  et  Justitia,  R.  Ancion, 

Liege,  1900. 
POTTIER,  A.,  Questiones  Sociales  et  Ouvrieres, 

Paris,  1883. 
ROSS,  J.,  ELLIOTT,  Ph.D.,  Consumers  and  Wage 

Earners,  Devin  Adair  Co.,  New  York,  1912. 
ROSS,  J.  ELLIOTT,  Ph.  D.,  The  Right  to  Work, 

The  Devin  Adair  Co.,  New  York,  1917. 
ROSS,    J.    ELLIOTT,    Christian    Ethics,    The 

Devin  Adair  Co.,  New  York,  1919. 


180  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

RYAN,  JOHN  A.,  S.  T.  D.,  A  Living  Wage,  Mac- 
Millan,  New  York,  1912. 

RYAN,  JOHN  A.,  S.  T.  D.,  Distributive  Justice, 
MacMillan,  New  York,  1916. 

RYAN,  JOHN  A.,  S.  T.  D.,  The  Church  and  So- 
cialism, The  University  Press,  Washington, 
D.  C,  1919. 

TANQUEREY,  AD.,  Synopsis  Theologiae  Mo- 
nths, Vol.  Ill,  Bonziger  Brothers,  New  York, 
1907,  3rd  Edition. 

VERMEERSCH,  A.,  S.  J.,  Quaestiones  de  Jus- 
titia,  Bruges,  1901. 

ECONOMIC 

ADAMS  &  SUMMER,  Labor  Problems,  MacMil- 
lan Co.,  New  York,  1915. 

ASHLEY,  W.  G.,  English  Economic  History, 
London,  1892. 

BELLOC,  HILAIRE,  The  Servile  State,  Lon- 
don, 1912. 

BOYLE,  Minimum  Wage  and  Syndicalism. 

BRISSENDEN,  P.  F.,  The  I.  W.  W.  A  Study 
of  American  Syndicalism,  Columbia  Univer- 
sity Press,  1919. 

BARNETT  &  McCABE,  Mediation,  Investiga- 
tion and  Arbitration  in  Industrial  Disputes, 
D.  Appleton  &  Co.,  New  York,  1916. 

BROOKS,  JOHN  GRAHAM,  The  Social  Unrest, 
The  MacMillan  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1903. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  181 

CARLTON,  FRANK  T.,  Ph.  D.,  The  History  and 
Problems  of  Organized  Labor,  D.  C.  Heath 
&  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1911. 

CLARK,  VICTOR  A.,  Ph.  D.,  The  Labor  Move- 
ment in  Australia,  Henry  Holt  &  Co.,  New 
York,  1906. 

CLEVELAND  &  SCHAFER,  Democracy  in  Re- 
construction, Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  New 
York,  1919. 

CLARK,  LINDLEY  D.,  LL.  M.,  The  Law  of  the 
Employment  of  Labor,  MacMillan  Co.,  N. 
Y.,  1911. 

CLAY,  Syndicalism  and  Labor. 

COMMONS,  JOHN  R.,  Industrial  Goodwill,  Mc- 
Graw  Hill  Book  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1919. 

COMMONS,  J.  R.,  History  of  Labor  in  the 
United  States,  2  Vols.,  MacMillan,  N.  Y., 
1918. 

COMMONS  &  ANDREWS,  Principles  of  Labor 
Legislation,  Harper  &  Bros.,  N.  Y.,  1919. 

COMMISSION  ON  INDUSTRIAL  RELA- 
TIONS, Final  Report,  U.  S.,  1915. 

CROSS,  I.  B.,  Collective  Bargaining  and  Trade 
Agreements,  etc.,  University  of  California, 
1919. 

ELY,  RICHARD  T.,  Ph.  D.,  LL.  D.,  Evolution 
of  Industrial  Society,  MacMillan  Co.,  N.  Y., 
1903. 

ESTEY,  J.  A.,  Revolutionary  Syndicalism  in 
France,  London,  1913. 


182  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

FRIEDMAN,  ELISHA  M.,  Lcabor  and  Recon- 
struction in  Europe,  Dutton  &  Co.,  N.  Y., 
1919. 

GILMAN,  NICHOLAS  FAINE,  Methods  of  In- 
dustrial Peace,  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  N.  Y., 
1904. 

GOMPERS,  S.,  Labor  and  the  Common  Welfare, 
Dutton  &  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1919. 

GROAT,  GEORGE  GRAHAM,  Ph.  D.,  Attitude 
of  American  Courts  in  Labor  Cases,  The  Co- 
lumbia LTniversity  Press,  1911. 

GROAT,  GEORGE  GRAHAM,  Organized  Labor 
in  America,  MacMillan  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1919. 

GRANT,  PERCY  STICKNEY,  Fair  Play  for 
the  Workers,  Moffat  Yard  &  Co.,  N.  Y., 
1919. 

HALL,  FRED  S.,  Ph.  D.,  Sympathetic  Strikes 
and  Sympathetic  Lockouts,  The  Columbia 
University  Press,  N.  Y.,  1898. 

HAYES,  J.  H.  CARLTON,  A  Political  and  Social 
History  of  Europe,  Vol.  II. 

HENDERSON,  RT.  HON.  ARTHUR,  M.  P., 
The  Aims  of  Labor,  B.  W.  Huebsch,  New- 
York,  1918. 

HOBSON,  The  Industrial  System,  Longmans, 
N.  Y.,  1909. 

HOXIE,  ROBT.  FRANKLIN,  Ph.  D.,  Trade 
Unionism  in  the  United  States,  D.  Appleton 
&  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1919, 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  183 

JAY,  R.,  La  Protection  Legale  du  Travailleurs, 

Larose,  Paris,  1904. 
KING,  The  Wealth  and  Income  of  the  People  of 

the  United  States,  MacMillan,  N.  Y.,  1915. 
KING,  HON.  W.  L.  MacKENZIE,  C.  M.  G.,  Ph. 

D.,  Industry  and  Humanity,  Houghton  Mif- 
flin Co.,  N.  Y.,  1918. 
KIRKUP,  THOMAS,  History  of  Socialism,  6th 

Edition. 
LEITCH,  JOHN,  Man  to  Man— The  Story  of 

Industrial    Democracy,    B.    C.    Forbes    Co., 

N.  Y.,  1919. 
LEWIS,  The  Rise  of  the  American  Proletariat. 
LEVERHULME,  W.  H.  L.,  Six  Hour  Day  and 

Other  Industrial  Questions,  Holt  &  Co.,  1919. 
MARRIOTT,  J.  A.  R.,  Right  to  Work,  Oxford 

Press,  1919. 
MENGER,  The  Right  to  the  Whole  Product  of 

Labor,  London,  1899. 
MITCHELL,  JOHN,   Organized  Labor,  Ameri- 
can Book  House,  1903. 
NEARING,  SCOTT,  Ph.  D.,  Social  Adjustment, 

The  MacMillan  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1916. 
PHILLIPS,  S.  L.,  Reciprocal  Rights  of  Capital, 

Labor  and   the  State,   Washington,   D.   C, 

1919. 
POTTER,  Development  of  English  Thought. 
RENAULT,  Histories  des  Greves. 
ROGERS,  J.  E.  T.,  Work  and  Wages. 


184  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

REPORT  ON  STRIKES  AND  LOCKOUTS  IN 
CANADA,  1901-1916. 

REPORT  OF  THE  DEPT.  OF  LABOR,  Canada, 
for  year  ending  March  3,  1918. 

SCHOENLANK,  BRUNO,  Sociale  Kamfe  von 
300  Jahren. 

SQUIRES,  B.  M.,  Operation  of  the  Industrial 
Disputes  Investigation  Act  in  Canada,  U.  S. 
Dept.  of  Labor  Bulletin,  1918. 

STREEGHTOFF,  FRANK  HATCH,  The 
Standard  of  Living  among  Industrial  Peo- 
ple of  America,  Houghton  Mifflin  Co.,  N.  Y., 
1911. 

SNOWDEN,  PHILIP,  M.  P.,  The  Living  Wage, 
Hodder  &  Stoughton,  N.  Y.,  1912. 

TAUSSIG,  Principles  of  Economics,  MacMillan, 
N.  Y.,  1917. 

TAWNEY,  Minimum  Rates  in  the  Tailoring  In- 
dustry, London,  1915. 

TEAD,  ORDWAY,  Instincts  in  Industry— A 
Study  of  Working  Class  Psychology,  Hough- 
ton Mifflin  Co.,  N.  Y.,  1918. 

WALKER,  The  Wage  Question,  N.  Y.,  1876. 

WEBB,  SYDNEY  &  BEATRICE,  Industrial  De- 
mocracy, Longmans,  Green  &  Co.,  1897. 

WEBB,  SYDNEY  &  BEATRICE,  The  History 
of  Trade  Unionism,  N.  Y.,  1911. 

WRIGHT,  CARROLL  D.,  The  Industrial  Evo- 
lution of  the  United  States,  N.  Y.,  1895. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  185 

WRIGHT,  THOMAS,  Sweated  Labor  and  Trade 
Boards  Act,  P.  S.  King  &  Son,  London,  1911. 

PERIODIC  A L S 

American  Catholic  Quarter!//  Review. 

Vol.  VII,  July,  188:3,  Capital  &  Labor. 

Vol.    XXV,  -Ian.,  1900,   Rene  Holland,  S.  J., 
Industrial  Arbitration. 
Catholic  Charities  Review,  Editorials. 

1919,  Oct.,  Nov.,  Dec. 

1920,  Jan. 

Catholic  University  Bullet i/i. 

Vol.  V,  Jan.,  1899,  W.  J.  Kerby,  Ph.  D.,  Diffi- 
culties of  the  Labor  Movement. 

Vol.  VIII,  Jan.,   1902,  W.  J.   Kerb;,  Ph.  D., 
Tin-  Public  and  the  Labor  Question. 

Vol.  VIII,  Apr.,  1902,  J.  A.  Ryan,  D.  D.,  The 
Laborer's  Right  to  a  Living  Wage. 

Vol.  IX,  1908,  Leo  Dubois,  S.  M.  M.,  The  Min- 
ing Question. 
Central  Hlatt  and  Social  Justice,  Collective  Bar- 
gaining. 

1919,  Nov.,  Dec. 

1920,  Jan.,  Feb. 
Independent. 

V..1.  <)!),  Sept.,  1919,  Guardians  of  Order  Abdi- 
cate.    Strike  of  Boston's  Police. 
Irish  Ecclesiastical  Record. 

O'lbrbv.  C.    M.,  The  Labor  Problem. 


186  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE 

Irish  Theological  Quarterly. 

Vol.  VII,  Jan.,  1912,  J.  Kelleher,  The  Morality 

of  Strikes. 
Vol.  XIV,  Apr.,  1919,  W.  Moran,  Some  Causes 

of  the  Present  Social  Unrest. 
Vol.  XIV,  Oct.,  1919,  Direct  Action,  Its  Ethical 
Aspect. 
Labor  Gazette,  Dept.  of  Labor,  Canada. 

1918,  February. 

1919,  March,  August. 
Literary  Digest. 

Vol.   60,  Mar.   1,   1919,  Meaning  of  Western 

Strikes. 
Vol.  61,  Jun.  14,  1919,  Canada's  Labor  War. 
Vol.  62,  Aug.  30,  1919,  High  Cost  of  Strikes. 
Vol.  62,  Sep.  27,  1919,  The  Policeman's  Right 

to  Strike. 
Vol.  63,  Nov.  29, 1919,  Labor's  Right  to  Strike. 
Vol.   63,  Dec.   20,  1919,  Who  Won  the  Coal 

Strike? 
Living  Age. 

Vol.  300,  Mar.  15,  1919,  J.  R.  Clynes,  British 

Nation  and  the  Great  Strikes. 
Vol.  301,  P.  Airey,  Arbitration  in  Australia. 
London  Quarterly  Review. 

Vol.    132,   Oct.,    1919,   F.    C.    J.    Hearmshan, 

Strikes,  Their  Ethical  Aspects. 
London  Spectator. 

Vol.  122,  Feb.  8,  1919,  Strikes. 

Vol,  123,  Oct.  11,  1919,  The  Right  to  Strike. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  187 

Vol.  123,  July  26,  1919,  The  Miners'  Strike. 

Vol.  1«8,  Oct.  4,  1919,  The  Railway  Strike. 

Vol.  IJ88,  Oct.  19,  1919,  The  Strike. 
London  Universe,  March  21, 1919. 
Mont  hi  if  Labor  Review,  U.  S.  Dcpt.  of  Labor. 

1919,  Aug.,  Sept.,  Dec. 

1920,  January. 
Nation. 

Vol.  108,  Apr.  5,  1919,  E.  Fenter,  Bolshevism 
and  the  General  Strike  in  Switzerland. 

Vol.  108,  June  14,  1919,  J.  A.  Stevenson,  The 
Great  Winnipeg  Strike. 

Vol.  108,  June  28,  1919,  W.  McDonald,  Paving 
the  Way  to  Revolution.     Strikes  in  France. 

Vol.  109,  July  12,  1919,  The  Winnipeg  Strike. 

Vol.   109,  Oct.   4,  1919,  Organization  or  Vio- 
lence? 
National  Municipal  Review,  Philadelphia. 

Vol.  VII,  Nov.,  1918,  Strikes  of  Municipal  Em- 
ployees. 

Vol.  VIII,  Mar.,  1919,  D.  W.  Hyde,  Jr.,  Lon- 
don Police  Strike. 
National  Review,  Jan.,  1920,  P.  Airey,  Arbitra- 
tion in  Australia. 
New  Republic. 

Vol.  18,  Mar.  22,  1919,  G.  D.  H.  Cole,  Hours 
Movement  in  England. 

Vol.  19,  July  9,  1919,  A.  E.  Darley,  Winnipeg 
Revolution. 


188  THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE. 

Vol.  20,  Nov.  19,  1919,  G.  D.  H.  Cole,  The 
British  Railway  Strike. 

Vol.  21,  Jan.  21,  1920,  Walter  Lipmann,  Can 
the  Strike  be  Abandoned? 

Vol.  21,  Jan.  21,  1920,  William  Hard,  Out  of 
the  Mouth  of  Miners. 
New  Statesman,  London. 

Vol.  XIII,  June  14,  1919,  Causes  of  Strikes. 

Vol.  XIII,  June  26,  1919,  Causes  of  the  Winni- 
peg Strike. 

Vol.  XIII,  Sept.  27,  1919,  Wages  and  Strikes. 

Vol.  XIV,  Oct.  4,  1919,  S.  Webb,  Facts  of  the 
Strike. 

Vol.  XIV,  Oct.  4,  1919,  The  Men  Are  Always 
Right. 

Vol.  XIV,  Oct.  4,  1919,  The  British  Railway 
Strike. 

Vol.  XIV,  Oct.  4,  1919,  Anarchist  Conspiracy. 

Vol.  XIV,  Oct.  11,  1919,  After  the  Strike. 
Outlook. 

Vol.    122,   June   18,    1919,  F.   Maitland,   Bol- 
shevism Testing  Canadian  Common  Sense. 

Vol.    122,    June    18,    1919,    Canadian    Labor 
Troubles. 

Vol.  123,  Nov.  12,  1919,  Right  of  the  People  to 
Defend  Themselves. 

Vol.  123,  Oct.  29,  1919,  American  Industry  in 
a  State  of  War. 


THE  MORALITY  OF  THE  STRIKE  189 

Public. 

Vol.  21,  April  27,  1918,  H.  L.  Kenvin,  Prevent- 
ing Strikes  in  Wartime. 

Vol.  22,  June  14,  1919,  The  Winnipeg  Strike. 

Vol.  22,  June  21,  1919,  C.  L.  Jolmson,  Revolu- 
tion or  Strike  in  Winnipeg? 

Vol.  22,  Sept.  20,  1919,  Can  Public  Servants 
Strike? 
I\<  view  of  Rczwzcs. 

Vol.  60,  Oct.,  1919,  Boston  Police  Strike. 

Vol.  60,  Nov.,  1919,  Why  the  General  Strike 
Failed  in  Italy. 
Scientific  American. 

Vol.  121,  Nov.  15,  1919,  The  Strike  Problem. 
Survey. 

Vol.  42,  Aug.  2,  1919,  G.  Taylor,  Epidemic  of 
Strikes  in  Chicago. 

\<>1.    42,   Sept.   20,    1919,   The  Boston   Police 
Strike. 


INDEX 


Act,  Workmen's  Compensation,  166. 
Advancement  of  laboring  classes,  8. 

Alliance,  Citizens'  Industrial.  Il'i 

American  Federation  of  Labor,  119. 

Ancient  civilization,  economic  regime  of,  1. 

Anti-Slavery  orators,  19. 

Arbitration,  compulsory,  159,  1  .jO,  161,  165;  not  successful, 
155;  a  two-edged  sword,  166;  Australia  and  Board  of, 
143;  courts,  157;  danger  of  tribunal  of,  154;  system 
favored,  K>2. 

Ashley  on  serfdom,  7. 

eiation,  man's  need  of,  28. 
[ation,  National   l.rectors',  118;  National  Manufactur- 
ers', 11^.  11.0,  ]20. 

Associations,  laborers',  given  civil  recognition,  14. 

Australia  and  Board  of  Arbitration,  143. 

Authoritv,  duty  of  civil,  150;  essential,  75;  private,  97; 
State,  144,  145. 

Bargaining,  collective,  174;  principles  of,  73. 

Beneficial  effects  of  the  minimum  wage,  168. 

Board  of  Arbitration,  142;   Australia  and,  143. 

Boston  Police  Strike,  The,  78. 

Braddock,  tOWU  of,  14  7. 

Brit  Mi  National  Conference  of  Coal  Miners,  130. 

Canon  Law,  new,  and  living  wage,  49. 
Capital,  labor  and,  bound  together,  46. 

Capitalism,  modern  system  of,   169;   Reformation  and  Ra- 
tionalistic, 57. 
Capitalists,  workers  must  become,  171. 
Cardinal  Mercier  on  Labor  Problems,  153. 
Catholic  Guilds  of  Middle  Ages.  19. 
Catholicism,  suppressed,  57. 
Catholic  parochial  school  system,  133. 
Cause  of  the  strike,  47. 
tion  of  work,  99. 
Character  of  l.it.or  demands,  44. 
Charity,   violation   of,  33,  60. 
Cheap  labor,  consuming  class  and,   12. 

Children  and   factories,  11;  Sir  Robert  Peel  on  pauper,  19, 
Christianity,  influence  of,  6. 
Church,  strikes  and  the  teaching  of  the,  91. 

11)1 


192  INDEX 

Citizens'  Industrial  Alliance,  119. 

Civic  obligations  not  suspended  during  a  strike,  96. 

Civil  authority,  duty  of,   ISO. 

Civilization,  economic   regime  of,  1. 

Classes,  advancement  of  Laboring,  *;  conflicts  between,  126. 

Closed  shops,  fund  to  combat,  120. 

Coal   Miners,  British  National  Conference  of,  130. 

Collective  bargaining,  principles  of,  7:5,  174. 

Commodity,  labor  a,  l  2, 

Compensation    Act,    Workmen's,    166. 

Compulsory  arbitration,   152,   159,  I'M,  165;  not  successful, 

155;  a  two-edged  sword,  156. 
Condition  of  slaves,  3. 
Conditions,   economic,   51;   working,    60;    justifying   shorter 

hours,  70. 
Conflict  between  classes,  126. 
Congress,  joint,  at  Nantes,  126. 
Consuming  class  and   cheap   labor,  49, 
Contract,  invalid,  36,  38. 
Contractual   relationship,   33. 
Contracts,  just,  33. 
Cooperative  productive  societies,  172. 
Corporation,   United  States  Steel,   121. 
Costs  of  production,  effects  of  increased,  40. 
Courts,  arbitration,  157. 
Craft  guilds,  8. 

Danger  of  a  tribunal  of  arbitration,  the,  154. 

Degradation  of  labor  after  the  Reformation,  10. 

Demands,  means  employed  to  enforce,  91. 

Destitution  after  the  Reformation,  11. 

Destruction  of  life  or  property  forbidden,  95,  99. 

Development  of  the  strike,  origin  and,  1. 

Direct  legislation,  148. 

Distribution,  justice  in,  57. 

Domestic  system,  13. 

Duty  of  civil  authority,  150. 

Duty  of  the  State,  141. 

Earliest  evidence  of  a  strike,  9. 

Early  history  of  slavery,  3. 

Economic  conditions,  54;  forces  and  political  influences,  153; 
slavery,  revolt  against,  14. 

Effects  of  increased  cost  of  production,  40. 

Egyptian  Pharaohs,  4. 

Eight-hour  day,  the,  68. 

Employer,  and  worker,  relation  existing  between,  23;  obliga- 
tions which  bind,  24-26;  State  officials  on  side  of,  147. 

Emplovers'  rights,  31,  34. 

Encvclical  of  Pope  Leo  XIII.,  21,  22,  48,  67,  68,  71,  73,  76, 
136,  139,  160,  169,  175. 


INDEX  193 

End  or  object  sought,  strike  in  relation  to,  45. 

England,  wealth  in,  59. 

Eranoi,  the  Greek,  5. 

Evil  results  of  a  strike,  78. 

Exaggeration  of  the  public  press,  the,  80. 

Extent  of  moral  pressure,  101,  103. 

Factory  system,  13. 

Factories,  pauper  children  and,  11. 

False  propaganda  and  public  opinion,  121. 

Family  wage,  minimum  wage  and,  61,  62. 

Fear,  use  of  unjust,  102. 

Federation  of  Labor,  American,  119. 

Fund  to  combat  closed  shops,  120. 

General  strike,  the,  127;  seldom  justified,  125;  sympathetic, 

123. 
General  legal  prohibition  of  strikes,  140. 
Golden  era  of  labor,  9,  10. 
Government  ownership  of  railroads,  132. 
Greek  Eranoi,  the,  5. 
Guilds,  craft,  8;  of  Middle  Ages,  Catholic,  12. 

Hayes,  Professor,  on  the  Reformation,  11. 
Hebrews,  slaves  protected  among  the,  3. 
History,  of  the   strike  problem,   1;  of  unionism,   119. 
Hours,  of  labor,  67;  conditions  justifying  shorter,  70. 
Husslein,  on  ancient  slavery,  Father,  3. 

Industrial,  systems,  dependent  on  slavery,  2;  revolution,  13; 

prosperity    and    large    fortunes,    139;    Workers    of    the 

World,  127;  proclamation  of,  128. 
Influence  of  Christianity,  6. 
Injustice,  the  strike  a   protest  against,  59. 
Insurance  legislation,  social,  167. 
Insurrection  at  Laurium,  5. 
Invalid  contract,  36,  38. 
Investigation  Act,  Industrial  Disputes,  163-166. 

Just  and  unjust  cause,  45. 

Justice,  in  distribution,  57;  violation  of,  99. 

Justifiable  methods,  just  cause  and,  30. 

Kazinczy,  Father,  and  strike,  147. 

Labor,  as  a  class  in  slavery,  2;  organizations  and  revolution, 
5;  golden  era  of,  9,  10;  degradation  of,  after  the  Reforma- 
tion, 10;  consuming  class  and  cheap,  42;  demands,  char- 
acter of,  44;  and  capital  bound  together,  46;  hours  of,  67; 
leaders  against  violence,  109;  American  Federation  of, 
119;  Cardinal  Mercier  on  problem  of,  153. 

Laborer,  prosperity  and  the,  137. 

Laborers'  associations  give  civil  recognition,  14;  obligation 
of  State  to  assist,  150. 


194  INDEX 

Laboring  classes,  advancement  of,  8. 

Large  fortunes  and  industrial  property,  139. 

Laurium,  insurrection  at,  5. 

Lawfulness  of  violence,  105,  106. 

Laws,  against  the  workers,  14;  forbidding  strikes  not  ef- 
fective, 15. 

Leaders,  labor,  against  violence,  109. 

League,  Syndicalist,  126. 

Legislation  on  strikes  necessary,  18;  direct,  148;  social  in- 
surance, 167. 

Life  or  property,  destruction  of  forbidden,  95,  99. 

Living,  man's  right  to  a  decent,  24;  strikes  raise  the  stand- 
ard of,  80. 

Living  wage,  37;  and  the  New  Canon  Law,  49;  statistics 
of,  63,  64,  65. 

Longshoremen's  and  printers'  strikes,  34,  55. 

MacNamara  trial,  the,  127. 

Man's  right  to  a  decent  living,  24;  need  of  association,  28. 

Maximum  wage,  53,  54. 

Means  employed  to  enforce  demands,  91. 

Methods,  indirect,  160. 

Middle   Ages,   9;    Catholic    guilds   of,    12. 

Militia,  State,  108. 

Minimum  wage  and  family  wage,  61,  62;  beneficial  effects 

of,  168. 
Modern  system  of  capitalism,  169. 
Moral  pressure,  extent  of,  101,  103. 
Morality  of  the  strike,  19,  21. 

Nantes,  joint  congress  at,  126. 

Nation,  public  pohcy  of,  132. 

National  Erectors'  Association,  118. 

National  Manufacturers'  Association,  118,  119,  120. 

New  Canon  Law  and  living  wage,  49. 

Notice  of  intended  strike,  94. 

Obligation  of  State  to  assist  laborers,  150. 

Obligations  which  bind  employer  and  worker,  24-26. 

Orators,  Anti-slavery,  12. 

Organizations,   Labor  and   Revolution,  5. 

Origin  and  development  of  the  strike,  1. 

Passing  of  guilds,  12. 

Peaceful  picketing,  97. 

Peel,  Sir  Robert,  on  pauper  children,  12. 

Physical  violence,  103. 

Political,  strike,  the,   129;   influence,  economic   forces   and, 

153. 
Pope  Leo  XIII.,  Encyclical,  21,  22,  48,  67,  68,  71,  73,  76, 

136,  139,  160,  169,  175. 
Press,  the  exaggeration  of  the  public,  80. 
Principles  of  collective  bargaining,  73. 


INDEX  195 

Printers'  and  longshoremen's  strikes,  34,  55. 

Problem,  history  and  development  of  the  strike,  1;  the 
strike  purely  modern,  15. 

Proclamation  of  the  Industrial  Workers  of  the  World,  128. 

Production,  effects  of  the  increased  costs  of,  40. 

Profit-sharing,  173. 

Prohibition  of  general  strikes,  140. 

Propaganda,  false,  and  public  opinion,  121. 

Property,  destruction  of  life  or,  forbidden,  95,  99. 

Proportionate  cause,  77. 

Prosperity  and  the  laborer,  137;  industrial  and  large  for- 
tunes, 139. 

Public,  right  of  the  general,  39,  42;  opinion,  false  propa- 
ganda and,  121 ;  policy  of  a  nation,  132. 

Railroads,  Government  ownership  of,  132. 

Rationalistic  capitalism,  Reformation  and,  57. 

Recognition,  necessity  of  union,  72. 

Reformation,  the,  and  labor,  10;  destitution  after  the,  11; 

and  rationalistic  capitalism,  57. 
Relation  existing  between  employer  and  worker,  23. 
Relationship,  contractual,  33. 
Report    of    the    United    States    Commission    on    Industrial 

Relief,  158. 
Repressed  guild  system,  57. 
Responsibility,  for  evil  results,  82;  State,  151. 
Revolt  of  radical  Socialists,  74;  against  economic  slavery,  14. 
Revolution,  labor  organizations  and,  5;  industrial,   13. 
Rights,  employers',  31,  34. 

Schoenlank  on  the  Reformation,  10. 

Serfdom,  7,  8,  9;  Ashley  on,  7. 

Six-hour  day,  the,  69. 

Slavery,  labor  as  a  class  in,  2;  industrial  systems  dependent 
on,  2;  revolt  against  economic,  14. 

Social  insurance  legislation,  167. 

Socialists,  revolt  of  radical,  74. 

Socialist  theory,  46. 

Societies,  cooperative  productive,  172. 

Society,  strikes  a  plague  to,  78-80. 

Solution  of  the  great  industrial  problem,  175. 

Soviets,  the,  74. 

State,  and  the  strikers,  the,  107;  miUtia,  108;  action  ano 
strike  prevention,  136;  duty  of  the,  141;  authority,  144, 
145;  officials  on  side  of  employer,  147;  may  not  forbid 
a  strike,  148;  has  obligation  to  assist  laborers,  150;  re- 
sponsibility, 151;  tribunals,  161. 

Statistics  of  living  wage,  63,  64,  65. 

Strike,  history  of  the,  1;  the  earliest  evidence  of  a,  9; 
problem  truly  modern,  the,  15;  three  essential  elements  of 
a,  19;  morality  of  the,  19,  21;  in  relation  to  end  or  object 


196  INDEX 

sought,  45;  cause  of  the,  47;  a  protest  against  injustice, 
59;  an  unlawful,  77;  Boston  Police,  the,  78;  evil  results 
of,  78;  violence  in,  80;  successful  issue  of,  87;  a  last  re- 
course, 92;  United  States  Steel,  93;  notice  of  intended, 
94;  civic  obligations  not  suspended  by  a,  96;  sympathetic, 
111,  115;  when  not  justified,  116;  the  general,  127;  the 
political,  129;  State  may  not  forbid,  148;  right  to,  not 
unlimited,   161. 

Strikers,  the  State  and  the,  107. 

Strikes,  prohibited  in  the  United  States,  14;  laws  forbidding 
them  not  effective,  15;  small  number  of,  for  a  century 
and  a  half,  15;  number  during  last  twenty-five  years,  16; 
strikes  once  comparatively  rare  in  the  United  States, 
16;  why  the  public  has  lost  sympathy  with,  17;  legisla- 
tion on,  necessary,  18;  and  the  teaching  of  the  Church,  21; 
printers'  and  longshoremen's,  34,  55;  a  plague  to  society, 
78-80;  raise  standard  of  living,  83;  successful,  of  doubt- 
ful benefit,  86;  general  legal  prohibition  of,  140. 

Sympathetic  strike,  the,  111,  115;  when  not  justified,  116. 

Syndicalism,  125. 

Syndicalist  League,  126. 

Syndicalists,  140. 

System,  factory  and  domestic,  13. 

Suppressed  Catholicism,  57. 

Teaching  of  the  Church  and  strikes,  21. 

Theory,  Socialist,  46. 

Three  essential  elements  of  a  strike,  19. 

Trial,  the  MacNamara,  127. 

Tribunal  of  arbitration,  danger  of,  154. 

Tribunals,  State,  161. 

United    States    Steel    strike,    93;    Steel    Corporation,    121; 

Commission  on   Industrial   Relief,  report  of,   158;  strikes 

prohibited  in  the,  14;  wealth  in,  59. 
Unionism,  history  of,  119. 
Union  recognition;  its  necessity,  72. 
Unlawful  strike,  an,  77. 
Use  of  unjust  fear,  102;  of  violence,  108. 

Violation  of  charity,  the,  33,  60,  92;  of  justice,  99. 
Violence,   physical,    103;    lawfulness   of,   105,    106;    use  of, 
108;  labor  leaders  against,  109. 

Wage,  maximum,  53,  54,  168;  minimum  and  family,  61,  62; 
living,  37. 

Wealth,  in  England,  59;  in  United  States,  59. 

Worker,  relation  existing  between  employer  and,  23;  obliga- 
tions which  bind  employer  and,  24-26. 

Workers,  laws  against  the,  14;  must  become  capitalists,  171. 

Working  conditions,  66. 

Workmen's  Compensation  Act,  166. 

World,  Industrial  Workers  of  the,  127;  proclamation  of,  128. 


HI 

{111 

'«!!§ 


Willi 


